NationStates Jolt Archive

And thus, history would have to be put behind us and humanity would have to make the choice of gaining what it wants versus keeping a hold on power.
Humanity has never been able to "make a choice" unanimously as a collective.
Humanity doesn't really exist, as it's just a word used to grossly and generally describe a group of individuals. Ten people in a room does not equate to 11... 10 plus "humanity". To assume "their" compliance is intellectual fantasy.
Unless, of course, we're discussing this group of collectivists:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/images/bestoflv/1998/photos/startrek-borg.jpg

Also in non-zero-sum economics,
An example.

If a farmer succeeds in raising a bumper crop, he will benefit by being able to sell more food and make more money. The consumers he serves benefit as well, because there is more food to go around, so the price per unit of food will be lower. Other farmers who have not had such a good crop might suffer somewhat due to these lower prices, but this cost to other farmers may very well be less than the benefits enjoyed by everyone else, such that overall the bumper crop has created a net benefit. The same argument applies to other types of productive activity.

Now, why is the need for money even there? Why are these crops not allocated in turn by the government/the people as a 'tit for tat' creating a benefit overall for the people.

Humanity has never been able to "make a choice" unanimously as a collective.
Humanity doesn't really exist, as it's just a word used to grossly and generally describe a group of individuals. Ten people in a room does not equate to 11... 10 plus "humanity". To assume "their" compliance is intellectual fantasy.
Unless, of course, we're discussing this group of collectivists:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/images/bestoflv/1998/photos/startrek-borg.jpg
That is one fundamental flaw of utopian theory.

Also in non-zero-sum economics,
An example.

If a farmer succeeds in raising a bumper crop, he will benefit by being able to sell more food and make more money. The consumers he serves benefit as well, because there is more food to go around, so the price per unit of food will be lower. Other farmers who have not had such a good crop might suffer somewhat due to these lower prices, but this cost to other farmers may very well be less than the benefits enjoyed by everyone else, such that overall the bumper crop has created a net benefit. The same argument applies to other types of productive activity.

Now, why is the need for money even there? Why are these crops not allocated in turn by the government/the people as a 'tit for tat' creating a benefit overall for the people.
Ideally, that would be the situation. Money is at the heart of all our problems, mainly because its an artificial resource.

Eichen,
The majority of controversy stems from different significance within language.
What we are meaning of 'humanity' encompasses 'the people' or those involved within this 'government'.

Europa, I'm quite content we've come to a common goal in strive of the synthesis of our two ideologies.

Eichen,
The majority of controversy stems from different significance within language.
What we are meaning of 'humanity' encompasses 'the people' or those involved within this 'government'.
Yet it is a choice which would have to be made by all humans who want to live in such a society, and unanimity of opinion is something that is nigh impossible to achieve.

Yep, I think we more or less support the same idea.

Though I'm now left to wonder if such an idea has its own name, as most ideologies and branches have been covered in their own.

Utopianism is the best way I could describe it :p It reminds me much of Plato's own ideas.

Well, if that's the case, I should be a tad more respectful of plato.
His 'world of ideas' was justifiable for his time. His influence on religion wasn't too keen in my eyes either.

Well clearly its an adaptation of his own ideas...but do remember, Plato was writing at a time where questioning religious beliefs was aphorism and a way to get yourself ostracised (not that today is that different). Yet the core ethos of his ideas was very much a utopian society of similar structure to our envisioned one.

That is one fundamental flaw of utopian theory.
Hey, I'm a libertarian who strongly objects to the idea of "utopian" anarcho-capitalism. Or, the most-talented kid's playground fantasy.

The problem is, you'll hear most capitalists readily admit that their system isn't a utopia.
Communism is almost always presented as such by its adherants. That should probably set off a little bullshit alarm in your head. I don't really think that in the real world (meaning outside of NS) the conversation still exists concerning communism vs. capitalism. The verdict is out. It's time old-fashioned political pontificators came down from their ivory towers and realized that the world has already experimented with it, and found it unsuitable given the inevitable champion of any political system; human nature.

And thus we are doomed to a world that works much like a hamster on a wheel? It won't last forever. At some point there will be sufficient conditions for a utopian society as suggested by Huckaber and myself.

PS: Utopian is indeed a flawed term, as such a society is idyllic, yet utopia means no place in its truest translation. If such a place could exist, it would no longer be a utopia :)

And thus we are doomed to a world that works much like a hamster on a wheel? It won't last forever. At some point there will be sufficient conditions for a utopian society as suggested by Huckaber and myself.

PS: Utopian is indeed a flawed term, as such a society is idyllic, yet utopia means no place in its truest translation. If such a place could exist, it would no longer be a utopia :)
I admire your optimism. It's very rare these days when pessimism is so easy.
I hope that human beings can learn to live in a world free from oppression, corruption and violence, too. I'm just not quite as "glass half full". :(

Neither am I under normal circumstances...yet something has to give at some point, and hopefully one day such a society will exist. We cannot base ourselves on an existence driven by a mere will to survive ad infinitum, at some point humanity will reach a stage at which it not only wants to exist, but it actually enjoys it. :)

Neither am I under normal circumstances...yet something has to give at some point, and hopefully one day such a society will exist.

I think it'd work best if it started with a small community of like-minded people and grew from there. Otherwise, it'd take a very long time to happen.

Build from the bottom up you mean...the other alternative is to globalise the world and then build from the top to the bottom. Whichever means achieves the end is the one to go by in the end.

Build from the bottom up you mean...the other alternative is to globalise the world and then build from the top to the bottom. Whichever means achieves the end is the one to go by in the end.

Exactly.

My problem is with all the people who brush Anarcho-Communism off, saying that it simply "won't work". I think their "reasoning" is due to misunderstandings about "individualism"...

Well it needn't be anarchism, nor communism, but rather a new concept altogether, perhaps governed by its elite, those most able to govern.

Most people view this in terms of current economics and are unable to project their minds further into the future past simple monetary systems. Thus, to them such a society is unfeasible. Who knows, perhaps it is. But its definitely a much better end to work towards than a system where you simply work for cash.

Attempting to establish Communism in one community or nation is a futile effort. Were such a state achieved in one nation, it would immediately suffer the depredations of its neighbors. Why? Because it lacks any form of government that can raise a professional army (or even a militia) to oppose the invaders. Some might even prefer the invaders to their own government. (Like those who sided with the Japanese in China and those who sided with the Nazis in Eastern Europe.) So, simple solution, erase the borders, institute a world-wide Communist regime. No need for a government, because the blokes next door don't have one and aren't going to try to invade you. Success!

But looks what happens next....

Society becomes based around a number of cities, probably cities that were already there. These cities centralize distribution of resources and act as a sort of capital for those cities around them. (If you've got a better idea for how people in heavy industry would get food and resources to continue working, get the farmers farming equipment, and get the miners who dig up the stuff that makes up the farming equipment get food and mining gear, I'd love to hear it.)

Now these city-communes have to deal with people who don't want to work, who are anti-social or whatever. They have two ways of dealing with them: executing them or exiling them (everyone's too busy working to work a jail or rehab center). Within a period of time, these anti-social outcasts will form gangs of like-minded individuals under the control of a single individual, let's call this person a 'warlord'. They become heavily armed and proceed to raid the lands farmed by the city-communes in order to survive. They are also joined by people disenchanted with the world order.

Now the city-communes have two choices: slowly starve to death or create their own para-military forces to deal with the bandits. And so they create para-military forces, elect a council to deal with waging battle against the bandits, and appoint a leader to make their para-military forces.

We've now gone from city-communes to city-states. Now the world is exactly as it was before Rome united Europe, before the Qin united China, before. The city-states will proceed to make war with one another as soon as the opprotunity arises (to provide more land to feed their people), warlords take de facto command of the city-states, and eventually you wind up with the world as it was 500 years ago, where the warlords are now 'royalty' and the older city-state system is replaced by nations.

In short, Communism would result in us throwing back the clock 3000+ years and starting all over again. Only this time with assault rifles, main battle tanks, attack helicopters, and nuclear weapons. Things would be, in short, world-wide, identical to the way things are in sub-Saharran Africa (where conditions are often described as being similar to a medieval socio-politico-economic structure, except they have men with AK-47s and machetes instead of knights with lances and swords).

The same thing would occur with Anarchy. I probably don't have to point out that everywhere Anarchy starts to take shape, the world pays for it. Russia falls into anarchy, we got Stalin. China falls into anarchy, we got Mao. Afghanistan falls into anarchy, we got the Taliban. Need I say more?

-A One-time Communist

Well it needn't be anarchism, nor communism, but rather a new concept altogether, perhaps governed by its elite, those most able to govern.

Most people view this in terms of current economics and are unable to project their minds further into the future past simple monetary systems. Thus, to them such a society is unfeasible. Who knows, perhaps it is. But its definitely a much better end to work towards than a system where you simply work for cash.

I agree with the last paragraph. I vehemently disagree with the monarchistic first paragraph.

Corruption is built into communism, not capitalism. Remember Acton "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
That cliche is only true in stories, in reality people that rise to the a position of having absolute power are already corrupt. A person who is uncorrupt does not have to become corrupt just because they have distribution control of a countries resources. I'll grant you that finding such a person is very difficult. Ideally the 'government' would be no different to any other job that needs to be done, no greater glory no greater benifit to the person who is working the job. THAT is why corruption is not built in to communism, but that is WHY communism is too EASY to corrupt.

Capitalism has built in corruption because it encourages class distinction. The belief that you are above anyother person is corruption of the worst kind.

There isn't a fixed amount of wealth. Wealth can be created.

Read this: http://www.promethea.org/Misc_Compositions/PrometheanCapitalism/Zero-Sum.html

There is STILL a FIXED amount of resources and a FIXED amount of efficency. Wealth is not created it is discovered. There 'may' be more wealth today then there was 6000 years ago but it wasn't "created" it was found, plundered, swapped, stolen and shared. Besides that I don't see that on average people are better off then they were 6000 years ago. 6000 years ago everybody had shealter, everyone that could hunt or that new someone that could hunt had food, everyone had clean water. Today I see the vast majority of people don't have access to sufficent food and clean water. This is a direct result of wealth stealing, wheather via a corrupt communist government or via capitalism. The capitalist sociaty and other corrupted sociaties have built there wealth on the loss of these peoples wealth.
And another point even IF I agree that wealth is 'created' the vast majority of capitalist transactions doesn't involve wealth creation it involves re-distribution of existing wealth. Almost exclusively to the more powerful sides benifit. Most transactions involve I buy or make this for $1.50 and sell it for $10. The customer almost never gets a true $10 worth of return from the transaction.

Capitalism doesn't have an ultimate destination.
My statement was a responce to the original comment:
Perfect capitalism is one able of generating a society where noone is poor, and ultimately, one where everyone can aspire to wealth,This implies that capitalism has a goal. My comment wasn't meant to imply an intended destination. It merely says what will happen (and is happening).

As to the rest, health care and education have been devastated by socialisation.I know corrupt states have truely stuffed up health and education.
But I can say with absolute certainty the devastation on these systems brought about by capitalism is equally as bad (unless you are a member of the elite class). A "How can I make a buck off this?" mentality should never be allowed these types of services.

You want your eyes examined.You need to take yours out of your text books and look at the real world.

Afghanistan falls into anarchy, we got the Taliban. Need I say more?

-A One-time Communist

1: The Taliban existed before we invaded and caused said anarchy. They were the previous governing body that we ousted.

2: No comment.

Well it needn't be anarchism, nor communism, but rather a new concept altogether, perhaps governed by its elite, those most able to govern.
That sounds like a seriously horrific dystopian tomorrow.

I have had exactly the same concerns as you have just expressed New Rafnaland, but keep in mind that this system would ideally be achieved at a point where societies have the technology to carry out the work for them.

Potaria, who is to govern society then? Is it to be completely lawless? It best be governed by its most able and successful members, in terms of true rather than monetary ability. Complete anarchism would lead back to tribalism, initiating the vicious circle just described by New Rafnaland. Absolute democracy is also impossible as achieving a consensus amongst all members of a society is nigh impossible. Thus, its best left to an able governing elite. This elite would be open to all talented enough to join it, and exclusive of all those who are not fit to govern.

Alchamania, indeed capitalism too seems to work better in textbooks than it does in reality.

That sounds like a seriously horrific dystopian tomorrow.
Why dystopian? If a society is well governed and its members wants are satisfied due to such good government, how is it dystopian?

Why dystopian? If a society is well governed and its members wants are satisfied due to such good government, how is it dystopian?
Okay, I didn't realize that we had left the universe to discuss fantasy. Sorry, please continue...

Why dystopian? If a society is well governed and its members wants are satisfied due to such good government, how is it dystopian?

Because, er, people are ruling over them with an iron fist, when their society is supposed to be about freedom?

Alchamania, indeed capitalism too seems to work better in textbooks than it does in reality.
That's all I'm saying... As I originally stated given a choice of the two I choose capitalism. Having corruption built-in means it's more able to monitor corruption, mostly it's not monitored but it can be.
Communism almost seems to shut it's eyes and hope no-one corrupt gets in power, and when they do. There is no mechanism to deal with it.

Potaria, then one can do whatever they wish. How the hell will such a society function, if you say are free to just walk over and murder X person? I never said iron fist government anyway, I meant more of a body that looks out for the best interests of humanity.

Oh and Eichen, you should never be so narrow minded. The future might be radically different to the present, and it may be possible in the future to suppress powerlust and such so as to ensure that the elite truly does have the populace's best interests at heart.

Societies without government? Chaos and anarchy...tribalism...need I go on?

That's all I'm saying... As I origianlly stated given a choice of the two I choose capitalism. Having corruption built-in means it's more able to monitor corruption, mostly it's not monitored but it can be.
Communism almost seems to shut it's eyes and hope no-one corrupt gets in power.
I agree with you on this. I am no fan of communism as an economic system. Sure, one day I would love to see the creation of a utopian society, but Communism is hardly anything near this.

That's all I'm saying... As I origianlly stated given a choice of the two I choose capitalism. Having corruption built-in means it's more able to monitor corruption, mostly it's not monitored but it can be.
Communism almost seems to shut it's eyes and hope no-one corrupt gets in power.

Marxism...

I agree with you on this. I am no fan of communism as an economic system. Sure, one day I would love to see the creation of a utopian society, but Communism is hardly anything near this.

Just what "Communism" are we talking about, hmm? The Soviet model, which happens to be state-sponsored Capitalism with the "Communism" label slapped on it? Sounds that way.

Potaria, then one can do whatever they wish. How the hell will such a society function, if you say are free to just walk over and murder X person? I never said iron fist government anyway, I meant more of a body that looks out for the best interests of humanity.

Oh and Eichen, you should never be so narrow minded. The future might be radically different to the present, and it may be possible in the future to suppress powerlust and such so as to ensure that the elite truly does have the populace's best interests at heart.

Societies without government? Chaos and anarchy...tribalism...need I go on?
There's only one scenario that could evolve into a working communist society.
It would involve highly advanced technology that would render human production unnecessary and obsolete. This technology would also need to be self-replicating. We could very well achieve that point one day. It'll just be a question of "Will we be willing to try?"

Hardly Potaria, that is merely state owned capitalism. I have something different in mind, a system where the economy (powered by technology) replaces the need to work so that all its citizens needs are satisfied, and one can enjoy life rather than being robotically chained to economic systems. To ensure law and order remain, and that the country continues to prosper and survive, a governing elite would oversee this process. The elite would be the most talented and able in a society by merit of their ability to govern well and selflessly. Very different to soviet "communism". As to how this society can be achieved, there are many ways, yet for now capitalism is the best we have until technology reaches such a level.

There's only one scenario that could evolve into a working communist society.
It would involve highly advanced technology that would render human production unnecessary and obsolete. This technology would also need to be self-replicating. We could very well achieve that point one day. It'll just be a question of "Will we be willing to try?"
Precisely :) And why indeed not give such a society a try? It can't be worse than what we have now, at any rate.

If a farmer succeeds in raising a bumper crop, he will benefit by being able to sell more food and make more money. The consumers he serves benefit as well, because there is more food to go around, so the price per unit of food will be lower. Other farmers who have not had such a good crop might suffer somewhat due to these lower prices, but this cost to other farmers may very well be less than the benefits enjoyed by everyone else, such that overall the bumper crop has created a net benefit. The same argument applies to other types of productive activity.

Now, why is the need for money even there? Why are these crops not allocated in turn by the government/the people as a 'tit for tat' creating a benefit overall for the people.

Without open market pricing, there is no information upon which to base the allocation plan. This is the nub of why socialism fails, it lacks real information upon which to base the plan.

Why should the farmer have his freedom to sell his goods taken away?

Money is not an artificial resource, it is simply a medium of exchange, and it is a natural evolution. Here's why.

Long long ago, man started to trade, fish for pelts, berries for tools, etc. But there is a difficulty, one must find "double-coincidences", you must have what I want, and I must have what you want. What we then do is try to find more marketable goods which we can exchange for what we really want, by a process of elimination, we get to a good that is the most marketable, a good that is used for neither production of consumption. We call this good, whatever it is (gold, silver, yak turds, etc) money.

That cliche is only true in stories, in reality people that rise to the a position of having absolute power are already corrupt. A person who is uncorrupt does not have to become corrupt just because they have distribution control of a countries resources. I'll grant you that finding such a person is very difficult. Ideally the 'government' would be no different to any other job that needs to be done, no greater glory no greater benifit to the person who is working the job. THAT is why corruption is not built in to communism, but that is WHY communism is too EASY to corrupt.

Ideally? Time to get your head out of the book. Corruption is built into communism because vast amounts of unchecked control is built into communism. The only to say communism is not inheriently corrupt is to consider it without people, which is absurd.

Capitalism has built in corruption because it encourages class distinction. The belief that you are above anyother person is corruption of the worst kind.

Class distinction? Put the book down! Capitalism encourages productive activity, and communist systems are far more stratified than capitalist systems simply because there is a small group at the top with total power.

There is STILL a FIXED amount of resources and a FIXED amount of efficency.

6000 years ago, uranium was not a resource.

The amount of resources we have is not fixed because a resource is simply something we can use.

There 'may' be more wealth today then there was 6000 years ago but it wasn't "created" it was found, plundered, swapped, stolen and shared. Besides that I don't see that on average people are better off then they were 6000 years ago.

Wealth is created. Uranium in the ground is not wealth, it is dust. But, someone discovered how to use it, how to refine it, etc. At that point, uranium became wealth.

Wealth creation is the result of combining three things, manpower, natural resources, and tools.

Alchamania, indeed capitalism too seems to work better in textbooks than it does in reality.

Irrelevant conclusion. Capitalism works better in reality than communism in reality.

Just what "Communism" are we talking about, hmm? The Soviet model, which happens to be state-sponsored Capitalism with the "Communism" label slapped on it? Sounds that way.

There is no objective difference between communism and state capitalism. State capitalism is simply another term for socialism.

Okay, I didn't realize that we had left the universe to discuss fantasy. Sorry, please continue...
It's not that much of a fantasy, you just have to have people let go of the notion that government leader is a position of "power' re-inforce that it is a job like any other. One that you can be fired from one that requires a specific level of qualification.
The qualifications 'needed' for world leaders at the moment is laughable. Before getting anywhere near politics people should be throughly tested both mentally and psycologically. Any form of inherant bias should also rule them out.
Actually yeah looking at who people choose to place in these positions it probably is fantasy that they would ever allow a qualified, intelligent person do that job.

Precisely :) And why indeed not give such a society a try? It can't be worse than what we have now, at any rate.

In this forum, we follow the laws of thermodynamics!

In any case, your society would quickly fall into decadence, and collapse. Rome all over again.

Hardly Potaria, that is merely state owned capitalism. I have something different in mind, a system where the economy (powered by technology) replaces the need to work so that all its citizens needs are satisfied, and one can enjoy life rather than being robotically chained to economic systems. To ensure law and order remain, and that the country continues to prosper and survive, a governing elite would oversee this process. The elite would be the most talented and able in a society by merit of their ability to govern well and selflessly. Very different to soviet "communism". As to how this society can be achieved, there are many ways, yet for now capitalism is the best we have until technology reaches such a level.

Who decides who is "talented" enough to lead? What safeguards are in place the those in power won't become currupt or blinded by power? You seem to have a great deal of faith in this imaginary "elite".

Personally, I am of the opinion that there is no one more qualified to make decisions for me then me.

Of course terror is necessary to socialism!
Not Always (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz).

There has been this one real and working case of Socialism as it was hoped it could be. And no one but the Zionists made it work, because they had the feeling of community, the feeling of a common goal, and the ability to make a clean start.

Communism is in theory, and to a certain extent in practice, a good idea. The main communist country of the C20th is of course, Russia. Having visited there, the main opinion seems to be that Russia is benifiting from Capitalism, but a lot of people prefered Communism, especialy older people who have experienced both.

Russia, at the end of C19th, was about sixty years behind the rest of the world. An agricultural, feudal state. In 1917, they were forced to sue for peace with Germany. They then adopted communism and in eight or so years (until the death of Lenin) became the most industrialised nation in the world. That's pretty sweeping, so I'll cite evidence: In 1945, Russia defeated 80% of the strength of the German army, that is the most powerful army the world had ever seen, that had invaded practicaly all of Europe. However, Stalin was perhaps not a good choice as leader (not that they had any choice...) But he still brought Russia up to superpower status within 25 years of entering power. After that, leaders just messed it all up and it got worse and worse until it fell to bits at the start of the 90s.

After that, leaders just messed it all up and it got worse and worse until it fell to bits at the start of the 90s.
It went a little deeper than that though...

And besides, you're undermining every Communist's argument: That Stalin wasn't one of them.

I'm too attached to my material possessions to be communist.

The Kibbutzim didn't work, firstly, they needed state-subsidies (or before 1948, cash transfers from the Jewish Agency, and wealthy Jews throughout the world).

And they've abandoned a lot of the collectivist principles.

One cannot sustain socialism without terror.

Stalin was a good choice of socialist leader. As George Reisman said, "He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst". It was his cunning, and willingness to use massive terror (something which no one can deny) that got him into power. He could keep socialism going, and advance it, and we can see the mass graves and gulag that prove it.

Communism is in theory, and to a certain extent in practice, a good idea.



As a monarchist i find Communism too abstract a concept.

The Kibbutzim didn't work, firstly, they needed state-subsidies (or before 1948, cash transfers from the Jewish Agency, and wealthy Jews throughout the world).

And they've abandoned a lot of the collectivist principles.

One cannot sustain socialism without terror.

Stalin was a good choice of socialist leader. As George Reisman said, "He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst". It was his cunning, and willingness to use massive terror (something which no one can deny) that got him into power. He could keep socialism going, and advance it, and we can see the mass graves and gulag that prove it.

Stalin did more than anyone to destroy communism.

Communism is in theory, and to a certain extent in practice, a good idea. The main communist country of the C20th is of course, Russia. Having visited there, the main opinion seems to be that Russia is benifiting from Capitalism, but a lot of people prefered Communism, especialy older people who have experienced both.

Nope. There never was communism. Surely it has already been pointed out, that the Soviet Union claimed socialismu as its form of government. Hence its name: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR (Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик).

They officially planned to achieve communism. But failed until the end.

Besides: what Stalin built up could only be called dictatorship. You might find socialism before and after his time. Even before the forced industrialization was not really communism.

Of course the elder people nearly always prefer the government before. In German there is a saying "früher war alles besser" ~ "in past times everything was better". Sometime supplemented with "as we still had a Kaiser". People are nostalgic, even when it was not better before. People will always complain about the present.
There are enough people here who wish back the GDR with its social benefits and forget to mention the lack of freedom and the lack of decent consumer goods they complained about before.

Russia, at the end of C19th, was about sixty years behind the rest of the world. An agricultural, feudal state. In 1917, they were forced to sue for peace with Germany. They then adopted communism and in eight or so years (until the death of Lenin) became the most industrialised nation in the world. That's pretty sweeping, so I'll cite evidence: In 1945, Russia defeated 80% of the strength of the German army, that is the most powerful army the world had ever seen, that had invaded practicaly all of Europe. However, Stalin was perhaps not a good choice as leader (not that they had any choice...) But he still brought Russia up to superpower status within 25 years of entering power. After that, leaders just messed it all up and it got worse and worse until it fell to bits at the start of the 90s.

So, Japan was a non-communist country and conquered half asia. Russia took most of the onslaught of Genghis Khan and was non-communist at this time. It just proves ... that you really overestimate the strength of the german army. As the german government did back then.

Back to the topic. Communism or even Socialism is a mighty nice idea. Some people vote for taking its best ideas like a basic salary for all from them into capitalism. But the nice idea has a serious flaw: humans.
It seems to have been proven in the last century, that we humans are just incapable of living in a completely shared society. Most of us tend to get lazy slackers and thus no new goods get developed and everybody groans about lack of niceties. People start to nag each other because one man works harder in his jobs and still gets the same.
We are all a little bit envious and lazy and competing ... that makes us a reasonable team in Capitalism but starts to suck very fast in Socialism.

The caveat in Socialsm/Communism is, that you have to ensure that everybody gets the part he is allowed to get. You cut off the ambitions to work more with taking from "the rich" to redistribute. And what do you want to give to the necessarily hard working people (who uphold the infrastructure) without making others envious? And how do you ensure, that nobody starts to amass other peoples riches without taking away freedoms?

Communism + Reengineering of the mind might work. I hope only after I died ;)

Communism in theory should be ok, in real life (when you introduce humans) it is a cathastrophy. So as Marx argumented (although it wasn't unintentionally) the best theory in practice is liberalism (namely the stage before communism in his thinking). All individuals have rights, liberties/freedoms and obligations within a market oriented society.

OK? :rolleyes:

In theory communism is the perfect system, everyones equal, gets paid equally, has equal ppertunitys. Everyone can have a chance to become the best. but when you throw humans who only want whats good for themselves it falls apart.

Moderated communism, Social Cemocracy is perfect though. This has the good points of communism (Democracy, Welfare state, ect.) but gets rid of the bad bits (Hard to motivate when youa rn';t going to get any better.)

In theory communism is the perfect system, everyones equal, gets paid equally, has equal ppertunitys. Everyone can have a chance to become the best. but when you throw humans who only want whats good for themselves it falls apart.

Moderated communism, Social Cemocracy is perfect though. This has the good points of communism (Democracy, Welfare state, ect.) but gets rid of the bad bits (Hard to motivate when youa rn';t going to get any better.)

I have heard just about enough with "Communism is perfect on paper but flawed in practice". What the hell does that mean? I could take a crap and say it looks perfect on paper..........Who the hell cares if it looks good on paper if it cant be applied to real life. The whole point of philosphy and economics is to improve life, the economy, society ...etc. Not to just doodle and say...gee this would be perfect except for that one small detail, IT DOESNT WORK. Enough is e-freaking-nough.

IF IT DOESNT WORK, ITS NOT PERFECT......I know its a very complex idea to {American} liberals (;) ), but with any hope you guys will be able to grasp it.

I have heard just about enough with "Communism is perfect on paper but flawed in practice". What the hell does that mean? I could take a crap and say it looks perfect on paper..........Who the hell cares if it looks good on paper if it cant be applied to real life. The whole point of philosphy and economics is to improve life, the economy, society ...etc. Not to just doodle and say...gee this would be perfect except for that one small detail, IT DOESNT WORK. Enough is e-freaking-nough.

IF IT DOESNT WORK, ITS NOT PERFECT......I know its a very complex idea to {American} liberals (;) ), but with any hope you guys will be able to grasp it.
I agree with you.
Many people don't understand communism and yet they argue about it. Communism is not about equal pay as the one you quoted thought.
Communists are just socialists with a better understading and conscience of the nature of the proletariat and its power.

I have heard just about enough with "Communism is perfect on paper but flawed in practice". What the hell does that mean? I could take a crap and say it looks perfect on paper..........Who the hell cares if it looks good on paper if it cant be applied to real life. The whole point of philosphy and economics is to improve life, the economy, society ...etc. Not to just doodle and say...gee this would be perfect except for that one small detail, IT DOESNT WORK. Enough is e-freaking-nough.

IF IT DOESNT WORK, ITS NOT PERFECT......I know its a very complex idea to {American} liberals (;) ), but with any hope you guys will be able to grasp it.
But Capitalism dosn't work eithier, (Burocracy, people on top doing no work, people on the bottom doing all of it, yet the people who work hardest get paid the least)

Real communism is bout everyone being equal and having the chance to do as well as they can through hard work. TIn a communist syestem there are no advantages except yourself. That of course, is plainly unworkable which is why a Social Democracy is a preferable alternative.

In theory communism is the perfect system, everyones equal, gets paid equally, has equal ppertunitys. Everyone can have a chance to become the best. but when you throw humans who only want whats good for themselves it falls apart.

Communism is absurd in theory and practice both. And ultimately all people want what is best for themselves.

I have heard just about enough with "Communism is perfect on paper but flawed in practice". What the hell does that mean? I could take a crap and say it looks perfect on paper..........Who the hell cares if it looks good on paper if it cant be applied to real life. The whole point of philosphy and economics is to improve life, the economy, society ...etc. Not to just doodle and say...gee this would be perfect except for that one small detail, IT DOESNT WORK. Enough is e-freaking-nough.

IF IT DOESNT WORK, ITS NOT PERFECT......I know its a very complex idea to {American} liberals (;) ), but with any hope you guys will be able to grasp it.
I think Sidney Hook put it best, and it works just as well for communism:

"I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature."

I think Sidney Hook put it best, and it works just as well for communism:

"I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature."
Funny. Both socialism and capitalism are philosophies. They don't produce work. People do.

But Capitalism dosn't work eithier, (Burocracy, people on top doing no work, people on the bottom doing all of it, yet the people who work hardest get paid the least)

Real communism is bout everyone being equal and having the chance to do as well as they can through hard work. TIn a communist syestem there are no advantages except yourself. That of course, is plainly unworkable which is why a Social Democracy is a preferable alternative.

Oh...I see. Capitalism doesnt work???? Then why is America on top? Why does America have one of, if not the lowest unemployment rates in the world? If Capitalism doesnt work then why does America have the largest economy.

And by the way...you make it seem like the world started with people running corporations. They start as low level employees and work their way up to the top. Why the hell shouldnt they get paid alot for thier hard work. If it wasnt for them, corporations wouldnt exist and gazillions of people would be out of work and living in poverty. Your right, Communism is about equality. But people arnt equal are they? Every person is a different, unique soul. I mean think about it. Imagine a world where people go to work and do the bare minimum, but "try their hardest". THERE WOULD BE NO PROGRESS!!! Wheres the incentive. And as for the people on the bottom that work so hard, and the people on the top that dont work at all. How the hell do you think they got to the top, by wishing themselves there??!!! They got their through hard work and dedication, and stayed there through more hard work. Those people are responsible for hundrends, thousands, or sometimes millions of employees who need their corporation. Those employees are only eating and living, because the people at the top work so hard to keep the corporatiosn running. And as for the hard working people at the bottom. I'm assuming your including the "great, hard working" people of New Orleans. Because they are surely on the bottom. As for hard working, I'm not so sure. Lets see. They live their whole life on welfare and they refuse to take the all the open jobs that are being offered. Then, they complain when the [probably illegal] Mexicans, who **GASP** actuallly appreaciate the jobs and want to work and get ahead on life, take those jobs that were offered......However, aside from everything I just refuted, your post was totally on the ball.:rolleyes:

Ah, the age-old debate: is communism any good? My answer is, in my humble opinion: no. For you see, while the concept of everyone being equal and sharing the national wealth, I feel that it restricts the basic rights of self-determination and making your own future, and that often people are denied much opportunity. On the other hand, I don't think capitalism is all it's cracked up to be: for, as we that live in North America, and perhaps the rest of the world, saw this summer, the oil companies have a massive grip on us. It is my theory that the companies jacked up gas prices so much so that when it was reduced to, here in Canada, 98 cents/litre, everyone was freaking out about how "good" the price was: it was 74 at the beginning of the summer. I find that to be ridiculous. Plus, when these large companies are constantly taking over small businesses, it ruins the entrepreneurial dream. So, long answer short: communism isn't good, neither is capitalism. So, what do I believe in? Socialism. Part commie, part cappie, all fairness.

I lived in the former Soviet Union, and I will say Communism that we had there, and communism as it is in China, and N. Korea is not real communism. Merely perverted, corrupted interpretations. Communism is a good idea, but at this point in time it can not be realized. However, in the future, it is quite possible.

Oh...I see. Capitalism doesnt work???? Then why is America on top? Why does America have one of, if not the lowest unemployment rates in the world? If Capitalism doesnt work then why does America have the largest economy.

And by the way...you make it seem like the world started with people running corporations. They start as low level employees and work their way up to the top. Why the hell shouldnt they get paid alot for thier hard work. If it wasnt for them, corporations wouldnt exist and gazillions of people would be out of work and living in poverty. Your right, Communism is about equality. But people arnt equal are they? Every person is a different, unique soul. I mean think about it. Imagine a world where people go to work and do the bare minimum, but "try their hardest". THERE WOULD BE NO PROGRESS!!! Wheres the incentive. And as for the people on the bottom that work so hard, and the people on the top that dont work at all. How the hell do you think they got to the top, by wishing themselves there??!!! They got their through hard work and dedication, and stayed there through more hard work. Those people are responsible for hundrends, thousands, or sometimes millions of employees who need their corporation. Those employees are only eating and living, because the people at the top work so hard to keep the corporatiosn running. And as for the hard working people at the bottom. I'm assuming your including the "great, hard working" people of New Orleans. Because they are surely on the bottom. As for hard working, I'm not so sure. Lets see. They live their whole life on welfare and they refuse to take the all the open jobs that are being offered. Then, they complain when the [probably illegal] Mexicans, who **GASP** actuallly appreaciate the jobs and want to work and get ahead on life, take those jobs that were offered......However, aside from everything I just refuted, your post was totally on the ball.:rolleyes:What the hell are you talking about?

Oh...I see. Capitalism doesnt work???? Then why is America on top? Why does America have one of, if not the lowest unemployment rates in the world? If Capitalism doesnt work then why does America have the largest economy.

And by the way...you make it seem like the world started with people running corporations. They start as low level employees and work their way up to the top. Why the hell shouldnt they get paid alot for thier hard work. If it wasnt for them, corporations wouldnt exist and gazillions of people would be out of work and living in poverty. Your right, Communism is about equality. But people arnt equal are they? Every person is a different, unique soul. I mean think about it. Imagine a world where people go to work and do the bare minimum, but "try their hardest". THERE WOULD BE NO PROGRESS!!! Wheres the incentive. And as for the people on the bottom that work so hard, and the people on the top that dont work at all. How the hell do you think they got to the top, by wishing themselves there??!!! They got their through hard work and dedication, and stayed there through more hard work. Those people are responsible for hundrends, thousands, or sometimes millions of employees who need their corporation. Those employees are only eating and living, because the people at the top work so hard to keep the corporatiosn running. And as for the hard working people at the bottom. I'm assuming your including the "great, hard working" people of New Orleans. Because they are surely on the bottom. As for hard working, I'm not so sure. Lets see. They live their whole life on welfare and they refuse to take the all the open jobs that are being offered. Then, they complain when the [probably illegal] Mexicans, who **GASP** actuallly appreaciate the jobs and want to work and get ahead on life, take those jobs that were offered......However, aside from everything I just refuted, your post was totally on the ball.:rolleyes:


America sucks, buddy. "Largest economy" for now, but it is projected that if things keep up, communist China will be surpassing you dipshits by 2040. Nice job, Uncie Sam, but America just ain't cuttin it nowadays. Not with the Bush family having a huge monopoly on oil AND the White House. What you people fail to recognize is this: your huge economy isn't as important as recognizing the basic rights of everyone in your country. Not all people are lucky enough to be born into a family where daddy is CEO of Exxon or Texaco, or born with enough zeal to spend 80 grand in college for a piece of paper that is becoming progressively more common and worthless. Just face it: America is unfair, with liberty and justice for those with money. Money is the root of all evil, my friend. What's more important: having a huge house with lots of property, or being happy doing what you want/can with your life? At the very least, communism gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed based on hard work. You try setting up a store in smalltown America without some asshole in New York or LA sending his boys to come buy you out.

Dude your retarted its so obvious what hes saying.

Not everyone is equal and therefore should not be treated as such.

Funny. Both socialism and capitalism are philosophies. They don't produce work. People do.
What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?

**Hopes that God will forgive him for talking down to a retard**

Dude, your a freaking idiot.....that was plain english. What the hell is wrong with you...I am scared that people this stupid live in our world. On the other hand, this must be sure proof of the existance of God. Because there is nothing short of a miracle that could have helped someone this stupid................ use an internet forum....:rolleyes:

Dude your retarted its so obvious what hes saying.

Not everyone is equal and therefore should not be treated as such.


Equal is a word with many definitions, you illiterate fuck. Everyone as a human being IS equal. Do you honestly think there are people who are better or worse than you simply because of their economic position? What you're saying is that some greedy asshole at the top of the company ladder who cuts jobs to save himself a buck is better than a hard working man supporting a wife and three kids who loves them and only wants to be happy with what he has? Good job, you are now a whore to American propaganda.

Oh...I see. Capitalism doesnt work???? Then why is America on top? Why does America have one of, if not the lowest unemployment rates in the world? If Capitalism doesnt work then why does America have the largest economy.

With a socialist country in second. And in case you didn't notice America has been slightly socialist since the Wall street crash, thats where captalism took you, good thing your greatest ever presdent was there to help you out.

And by the way...you make it seem like the world started with people running corporations. They start as low level employees and work their way up to the top. Why the hell shouldnt they get paid alot for thier hard work. Survay the corprates, how many of them went to a state school and stated at the bottom rung of the laader, if it's more than 1% I'll be suprised,. Most corprates enter at just eblow the excutive levela dn work up.

If it wasnt for them, corporations wouldnt exist and gazillions of people would be out of work and living in poverty. Your right, Communism is about equality. But people arnt equal are they? Every person is a different, unique soul. I mean think about it. Imagine a world where people go to work and do the bare minimum, but "try their hardest". THERE WOULD BE NO PROGRESS!!! Wheres the incentive. And as for the people on the bottom that work so hard, and the people on the top that dont work at all. How the hell do you think they got to the top, by wishing themselves there??!!!
Connections, a phoney degree at Eton, having a dad who was presedent/CEO, the most powerful amn in the world did it that way.
They got their through hard work and dedication, and stayed there through more hard work. Those people are responsible for hundrends, thousands, or sometimes millions of employees who need their corporation. Those employees are only eating and living, because the people at the top work so hard to keep the corporatiosn running. And as for the hard working people at the bottom.
they sit and have meetings that do nothing, if there so hard working how about they swap places with there workers.

I'm assuming your including the "great, hard working" people of New Orleans. Because they are surely on the bottom. As for hard working, I'm not so sure. Lets see. They live their whole life on welfare and they refuse to take the all the open jobs that are being offered.
That'd be because a hurrican took away there homes and jobs

Mexicans, who **GASP** actuallly appreaciate the jobs and want to work and get ahead on life, take those jobs that were offered......However, aside from everything I just refuted, your post was totally on the ball.:rolleyes:
GOod on the mexicans, they work hard at the £4.000 an hour jobs, they work ahrd and maybe they'll aown a flat some day, hell that guy with the mansion in the hill who inherited millions must ahve work so hard....

Our society is fucked up, inheritance is passed on from lazy son to lazy son. The hard working people (In your example the mexicans) do all the work and earn nothing. But thats capitalism for you. As for the people who live on Welfare, I've met some of these people, hell my mums on Welfair at the moment, do you ahve any idea how little the dole comes too? Barley anything. You can't live off the Dole. I know most people would leap at the chance for a job. As for the oen or two who don't, well i've never met them, so I can't say about it. But lets go with your suggestion and go with free market captialism, what would ahppen? ig famillys would rule everything, while the workers would ahve no safty net if they are just sacked without reason or proection.

Dude your retarted its so obvious what hes saying.

Not everyone is equal and therefore should not be treated as such.

**Sees a ray of truth shine down upon Urien Alarion**

**Hopes that God will forgive him for talking down to a retard**

Dude, your a freaking idiot.....that was plain english. What the hell is wrong with you...I am scared that people this stupid live in our world. On the other hand, this must be sure proof of the existance of God. Because there is nothing short of a miracle that could have helped someone this stupid................ use an internet forum....:rolleyes:
At least I've got you pinned down now, shouldn't you be capagning for Creationism right now, or burning books?

looks bad on paper and works even worse in practice?


Exactly. It seems like a good idea on a giant level, but individually for people it does not work.

America sucks, buddy. "Largest economy" for now, but it is projected that if things keep up, communist China will be surpassing you dipshits by 2040. Nice job, Uncie Sam, but America just ain't cuttin it nowadays. Not with the Bush family having a huge monopoly on oil AND the White House. What you people fail to recognize is this: your huge economy isn't as important as recognizing the basic rights of everyone in your country. Not all people are lucky enough to be born into a family where daddy is CEO of Exxon or Texaco, or born with enough zeal to spend 80 grand in college for a piece of paper that is becoming progressively more common and worthless. Just face it: America is unfair, with liberty and justice for those with money. Money is the root of all evil, my friend. What's more important: having a huge house with lots of property, or being happy doing what you want/can with your life? At the very least, communism gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed based on hard work. You try setting up a store in smalltown America without some asshole in New York or LA sending his boys to come buy you out.

omg i so want to strangle you right now:headbang: :sniper: :mad: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mad: :headbang: :gundge:

What f upped country do you come from? huh? America is not flawless but you guys just shit on us because your pissed off that we have achieved a large powerful country that for the most part calls the shots. Money is not the root of evil. Evil people is the root of evil. Money is an abstract object simply for exchanging needs and luxuries. Everyone thinks Americans are greedy evil pyschos. Stfu

Communism cannot work. At the simplist level, nobody is equal. You are taller and more masculin than me but i am better looking and thinner than some other person. We're all different. Communism crushes individuality and provides no motivation to get on in your job.

But its definately not worse than nazism

And by the way...you make it seem like the world started with people running corporations. They start as low level employees and work their way up to the top. Why the hell shouldnt they get paid alot for thier hard work.

Case and point: GWB. You think he's ever worked hard a day in his life? Well, I'm sure it must be tough on him to travel around the world playing golf and convincing suckers in the British Parliament over a smoke at Crawford that Iraq poses a threat, and I bet it sure took a lot out of him when he bought the Rangers, I mean, after all, it's not like they're selling out every game. The poor guy...he just can't seem to get a break, can he?

Dude your retarted its so obvious what hes saying.

Not everyone is equal and therefore should not be treated as such.
Your right, but everyone should have a equal chance, they should be judged on there abilitys and what they do, not where they start.

Equal is a word with many definitions, you illiterate fuck. Everyone as a human being IS equal. Do you honestly think there are people who are better or worse than you simply because of their economic position? What you're saying is that some greedy asshole at the top of the company ladder who cuts jobs to save himself a buck is better than a hard working man supporting a wife and three kids who loves them and only wants to be happy with what he has? Good job, you are now a whore to American propaganda.

Some people have decided to do something with their lives and work hard in school and are careful with money and listen to politics and not FUCKIN CELEBRITIES!!!!

Equal is a word with many definitions, you illiterate fuck. Everyone as a human being IS equal. Do you honestly think there are people who are better or worse than you simply because of their economic position? What you're saying is that some greedy asshole at the top of the company ladder who cuts jobs to save himself a buck is better than a hard working man supporting a wife and three kids who loves them and only wants to be happy with what he has? Good job, you are now a whore to American propaganda.

Four things.

1. If we were in person. I'd kick your "red" ass all over the place.

2. Unless you beleive that humans are like a flock of sheep and have no uniqueness at all, then no we are not equal, it has nothing to do with money, or race, or religion...we are all individuals, not a single one of us is the same as another...If you dont beleive that, well then theres no helping you.

3. Hope the mods catch you, you "red" bastard.

4. I bet you smell really really really nasty in person.;)

I voted I think communism is good (live in UK). Dont get me wrong, how it was practiced or carried out was bad. In theory it works though, and it is good.

omg i so want to strangle you right now:headbang: :sniper: :mad: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mad: :headbang: :gundge:

What f upped country do you come from? huh? America is not flawless but you guys just shit on us because your pissed off that we have achieved a large powerful country that for the most part calls the shots. Money is not the root of evil. Evil people is the root of evil. Money is an abstract object simply for exchanging needs and luxuries. Everyone thinks Americans are greedy evil pyschos. Stfu
Lol, and on come the smilies. Seriously, who taught you to type. And now you call epople who value somthing other than money evil HAH!

I don't think that by the way, i think you have a fool in the white house, have misplaced most of your ideals and that you've got a hell of a lot of idiots, but I also know perfectly sane Americans as well.

**Hopes that God will forgive him for talking down to a retard**

Dude, your a freaking idiot.....that was plain english. What the hell is wrong with you...I am scared that people this stupid live in our world. On the other hand, this must be sure proof of the existance of God. Because there is nothing short of a miracle that could have helped someone this stupid................ use an internet forum....:rolleyes:
That last part was beautifully sigworthy. (see below)

*wipes eyes*

Case and point: GWB. You think he's ever worked hard a day in his life? Well, I'm sure it must be tough on him to travel around the world playing golf and convincing suckers in the British Parliament over a smoke at Crawford that Iraq poses a threat, and I bet it sure took a lot out of him when he bought the Rangers, I mean, after all, it's not like they're selling out every game. The poor guy...he just can't seem to get a break, can he?

Ok...If you want to pick one guy out of the almost 300,000 millions Americans I can do that to. What about that black guy that lives in the ghettos of Watts (Ghetto in Los Angeles) who smokes crack all day, funds his crack need by welfare, and refuses to work for anyone...specificly "whitey"?

Lol, and on come the smilies. Seriously, who taught you to type. And now you call epople who value somthing other than money evil HAH!

I don't think that by the way, i think you have a fool in the white house, have misplaced most of your ideals and that you've got a hell of a lot of idiots, but I also know perfectly sane Americans as well.

I agree with Bush on many issues, not all. but i donot believe he is a fool nor that desiring wealth is a bad thing if you work for it.

At least I've got you pinned down now, shouldn't you be capagning for Creationism right now, or burning books?

Oh stereotyping are we? Thats a big no no for political correctness. Something you liberals worked soooo hard at.

Ok...If you want to pick one guy out of the almost 300,000 millions Americans I can do that to. What about that black guy that lives in the ghettos of Watts (Ghetto in Los Angeles) who smokes crack all day, funds his crack need by welfare, and refuses to work for anyone...specificly "whitey"?
Can you afford crack from Welfare, i doubt it. unless you live in a cardboard box.

omg i so want to strangle you right now:headbang: :sniper: :mad: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mad: :headbang: :gundge:

What f upped country do you come from? huh? America is not flawless but you guys just shit on us because your pissed off that we have achieved a large powerful country that (missing comma) for the most part (another missing comma) calls the shots. Money is not the root of (all) evil. Evil people is(supposed to be are, moron) the root of evil. Money is an abstract(or inanimate...they're easily mixed up) object simply for exchanging needs and luxuries. Everyone thinks Americans are greedy evil pyschos. Stfu(...I have NO IDEA what this means)
(spelling and grammar mistakes are in bold, and little notes I added in are in italic)

OH YES! I WANT TO BE AMERICAN!!!! PLEASE, GIVE ME EVERYTHING YOU HAVE!! I want to be hated all across the world. I want to be treated like a source of cheap labour if I don't work 9-5 in a cubicle. I want to have to pay for my health care. I want to be drafted and sent to fight in an unjust war! I'm SOOOOO FUCKING JEALOUS!!!!!!!!
I'm from Canada, asshole. We have free health care, programs to help those in poverty, a justice system that focuses on helping or criminals become productive, not keeping them cooped up in expensive prisons and making them even more pissed off when they're released, a government more concerned with war on poverty instead of war on drugs and war for oil, and we consider life and liberty more important than money and oil.

PLEASE LET ME BE AN AMERICAN!!!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Marco4/July%20Blog/morans.jpg

Oh stereotyping are we? Thats a big no no for political correctness. Something you liberals worked soooo hard at.
Steriotyping as well now? You automatically assume I'm a livberial and in favor of Politcial Correctness, I'm not by the way?But lets ahve a deal, you keep your sterotype of all 'Liberals' being Communist, Politcally correct people and I'll keep mine of all 'Concervatives' being bible loving, book-burning illiterate morons?

Can you afford crack from Welfare, i doubt it. unless you live in a cardboard box.

Ah but of course your right. He almost can buy his crack however, he decides to get that extra dollar for it, he can force some women to sell themselves....then he has excess money and sells some of his crack....then he becomes a crack/pimp king....And dont you dare tell me there arnt people like this.

(spelling and grammar mistakes are in bold, and little notes I added in are in italic)

OH YES! I WANT TO BE AMERICAN!!!! PLEASE, GIVE ME EVERYTHING YOU HAVE!! I want to be hated all across the world. I want to be treated like a source of cheap labour if I don't work 9-5 in a cubicle. I want to have to pay for my health care. I want to be drafted and sent to fight in an unjust war! I'm SOOOOO FUCKING JEALOUS!!!!!!!!
I'm from Canada, asshole. We have free health care, programs to help those in poverty, a justice system that focuses on helping or criminals become productive, not keeping them cooped up in expensive prisons and making them even more pissed off when they're released, a government more concerned with war on poverty instead of war on drugs and war for oil, and we consider life and liberty more important than money and oil.

PLEASE LET ME BE AN AMERICAN!!!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Marco4/July%20Blog/morans.jpg
Amen to that.

it means stuff you by the way.

Can you afford crack from Welfare, i doubt it. unless you live in a cardboard box.
Of course, I could get $500 worth of crack right now, but let's be realistic. They'll be smokin' that crack in subsidized housing, not a carboard box.

Four things.

1. If we were in person. I'd kick your "red" ass all over the place.

2. Unless you beleive that humans are like a flock of sheep and have no uniqueness at all, then no we are not equal, it has nothing to do with money, or race, or religion...we are all individuals, not a single one of us is the same as another...If you dont beleive that, well then theres no helping you.

3. Hope the mods catch you, you "red" bastard.

4. I bet you smell really really really nasty in person.;)


1. Bring it on, bitch.

2. I believe we are, as persons, unique. I also believe that we are, as PEOPLE, equal. Nazi fuck.

3. I'm not a communist.

4. I do, as a matter of fact. Why not take a sniff of my foot as I shove it up your candy-Yankee ass?

Well from a political compasses view im a little bit conservative and a smaller bit authoritarian.

I dont believe that pure capitalism is the answer also i dont believe being totally left wing is the answer. I think things like pepsi, mcdonalds, and the gap should be privatised. However, Things like water the human genetic code, and State land should not. Now can we stop with this American Pigs crap and get back on Communism.

Ah but of course your right. He almost can buy his crack however, he decides to get that extra dollar for it, he can force some women to sell themselves....then he has excess money and sells some of his crack....then he becomes a crack/pimp king....And dont you dare tell me there arnt people like this.
Yeah, he just grabs some woman and forces her to that, sure... And a guy with a crack addiciton wouldn't sell some crack, he'd use it himself. To him selling crack would be wasting it.

Steriotyping as well now? You automatically assume I'm a livberial and in favor of Politcial Correctness, I'm not by the way?But lets ahve a deal, you keep your sterotype of all 'Liberals' being Communist, Politcally correct people and I'll keep mine of all 'Concervatives' being bible loving, book-burning illiterate morons?

As you started with the stereotyping, I am foreced to counter it with my own.

Also, I didnt know that being religious was a BAD thing...funny, you learn something new each day....

Illiterate..hmm wow...I was under the impression that I was reading and writing in forum...I also was under the impression that Ronald Reagan....being the "illiterate" conservative he was....won a land slide victory...even in the blue states. So whos worse, the illiterate, or the people who vote for the illiterate to represent them?

(spelling and grammar mistakes are in bold, and little notes I added in are in italic)

OH YES! I WANT TO BE AMERICAN!!!! PLEASE, GIVE ME EVERYTHING YOU HAVE!! I want to be hated all across the world. I want to be treated like a source of cheap labour if I don't work 9-5 in a cubicle. I want to have to pay for my health care. I want to be drafted and sent to fight in an unjust war! I'm SOOOOO FUCKING JEALOUS!!!!!!!!
I'm from Canada, asshole. We have free health care, programs to help those in poverty, a justice system that focuses on helping or criminals become productive, not keeping them cooped up in expensive prisons and making them even more pissed off when they're released, a government more concerned with war on poverty instead of war on drugs and war for oil, and we consider life and liberty more important than money and oil.

PLEASE LET ME BE AN AMERICAN!!!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Marco4/July%20Blog/morans.jpg

no one was "drafted" dick face

Oh...I see. Capitalism doesnt work???? Then why is America on top? Why does America have one of, if not the lowest unemployment rates in the world? If Capitalism doesnt work then why does America have the largest economy.


Wow... One of the lowest unemplowement rates you say? Here's a list of countries with a lower rate, and their respective rates than us:


Australia 5.1
Bermuda 5
United Kingdom 4.8
Macau 4.7
Japan 4.7
Luxembourg 4.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis 4.5
Taiwan 4.5
Austria 4.4
Norway 4.3
Ireland 4.3
New Zealand 4.2
Cayman Islands 4.1
Korea, South 3.6
Ukraine 3.5
Singapore 3.4
Switzerland 3.4
Mexico 3.2
Brunei 3.2
Iceland 3.1
Malaysia 3
British Virgin Islands 3
Qatar 2.7
San Marino 2.6
Cambodia 2.5
Cuba 2.5
United Arab Emirates 2.4
Palau 2.3
Kuwait 2.2
Belarus 2
Gibraltar 2
Kiribati 2
Vietnam 1.9
Thailand 1.5
Liechtenstein 1.3
Azerbaijan 1.2
Faroe Islands 1
Jersey 0.9
Aruba 0.6
Uzbekistan 0.6
Man, Isle of 0.6
Guernsey 0.5
Cyprus 0
Angola 0
Maldives 0
Haiti 0
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 0
Norfolk Island 0
Andorra 0


Huh, looks like someone didn't do their homework. Also, the "Capitalism" in America right now is not true Capitalism. It's highly regulated, and with good reason. Laisses Faire doesn't work-it's been proven to not work, and be a detriment to society.


And by the way...you make it seem like the world started with people running corporations. They start as low level employees and work their way up to the top.

Not much of the time. Many did, many didn't. Many of them "preyed" off of the low level employees, forcing them to work in conditions that were extremely dangerous, appalling, and completely irresponsible. During the industrial revolution, it was not uncommon to lose a limb or two in the Factory.

[/quote]
Why the hell shouldnt they get paid alot for thier hard work. If it wasnt for them, corporations wouldnt exist and gazillions of people would be out of work and living in poverty.
[/quote]
Actually, in the corporation, the people at the top easily may not have worked hard to get there. Learn how corporations work, then come back.


Your right, Communism is about equality. But people arnt equal are they? Every person is a different, unique soul. I mean think about it.


You are confusing "equality" with "sameness". Don't. Equality refers to the treating of people fairly, and ensuring that the same opportunities are given to people to people.


Imagine a world where people go to work and do the bare minimum, but "try their hardest". THERE WOULD BE NO PROGRESS!!!


For your first part, it's called 99% of America, give or take. Most people work in jobs that pay a flat wage, without change. Only thing is, if you work harder, your boss expects you to work harder from now on, with no increase of pay. And your assertion about progress is false. For instance, the Russians had the best armored artillery vehicles(Tanks) for almost fifty years. This is just one example of progress, also.


Wheres the incentive.


Okay, I'm going to take this example from another thread:

Imagine Communism and Capitalism as a fishing boat. Under Capitalism, the Fisherman hires you and three other people to go out, is going to take you out for eight hours, and pay you the same whether or not you catch more or less fish. Now, if you catch less than 20, you will be fired. However, where's the incentive to catch 200 if not only you get payed the same, but you don't get a share of what you catch? You will get payed the same for catching 20 or 200 fish. Likewise, if the other people catch 200 fish, the Fisherman may see that you are not needed, and fires you. Also, you will fish for eight hours, regardless of whether or not you met a goal.

Communism works as thus: You and four friends go out fishing. You have an idea of how many fish you want to catch, but not set time limit. You have more incentive to catch more, because at the end of the day, you will have more. So say each of you caught 200 fish. You can each take 100 fish, and bring the rest back to the village to feed them. Your incentive: The more you catch, the more you personally get in the end, and the less time you spend.

Capitalism-No matter how much you work, you will get the same.
Communism-Hard work is payed off in the end.


And as for the people on the bottom that work so hard, and the people on the top that dont work at all. How the hell do you think they got to the top, by wishing themselves there??!!! They got their through hard work and dedication, and stayed there through more hard work. Those people are responsible for hundrends, thousands, or sometimes millions of employees who need their corporation. Those employees are only eating and living, because the people at the top work so hard to keep the corporatiosn running. And as for the hard working people at the bottom. I'm assuming your including the "great, hard working" people of New Orleans. Because they are surely on the bottom. As for hard working, I'm not so sure. Lets see. They live their whole life on welfare and they refuse to take the all the open jobs that are being offered. Then, they complain when the [probably illegal] Mexicans, who **GASP** actuallly appreaciate the jobs and want to work and get ahead on life, take those jobs that were offered......However, aside from everything I just refuted, your post was totally on the ball.:rolleyes:


And now this is just ignorant. First off, there are far more ways to get to the top than "hard work". Infact, I wouldn't doubt if most people "on the top" worked very little to get there. I must reiterate: Learn how corporations work.

Secondly, you are implying that all people on the bottom don't work hard. Many of them work 60-70 hour work weeks, in more than one job, just to make a semi-decent living. Of course, these people are lazy. Stop and think before you post.

And when did welfare enter this? Same with illegal immigration? Man, I'd love to debate with you. I'd win for sure.

Oh, and stop going for such blatant emotional appeal. It makes you look childish.

Yeah, he just grabs some woman and forces her to that, sure... And a guy with a crack addiciton wouldn't sell some crack, he'd use it himself. To him selling crack would be wasting it.

Omg...this is great...you are really arguing this with me....You are telling me that people that use drugs dont sell drugs?...Yes or no question.

Of course, I could get $500 worth of crack right now, but let's be realistic. They'll be smokin' that crack in subsidized housing, not a carboard box.
Subsdised housing still costs money, and crack costs money, he chooses one or the other. And your saying that a guy who's been thrown out of his work for no good reason whould then have his house taken away as well because he can't afford it. Thats right everyone who can't afford a house (When prices are so expensive) should live in a box on the street!

Ah but of course your right. He almost can buy his crack however, he decides to get that extra dollar for it, he can force some women to sell themselves....then he has excess money and sells some of his crack....then he becomes a crack/pimp king....And dont you dare tell me there arnt people like this.


Are there people like this? No shit.

Are there good, hardworking people who simply can't catch a break because CEO won't give them their Christmas bonus or raise their wage by 10 cents so he can buy another gold backscratcher? You better believe it...

no one was "drafted" dick face


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/draf-a22.shtml

Let the article speak for itself. Man, I hate you.

As you started with the stereotyping, I am foreced to counter it with my own.

Also, I didnt know that being religious was a BAD thing...funny, you learn something new each day....

Illiterate..hmm wow...I was under the impression that I was reading and writing in forum...I also was under the impression that Ronald Reagan....being the "illiterate" conservative he was....won a land slide victory...even in the blue states. So whos worse, the illiterate, or the people who vote for the illiterate to represent them?
Where did I say religion was a bad thing, but the sterotypical view of a republican is a relgious bible basher.

Liberal = Higher personal values lower property values, Drastic reform
Conservative = Higher property values lower personal values, Traditional values

I see no book burning morons in this equation

**Hopes that God will forgive him for talking down to a retard**

Dude, your a freaking idiot.....that was plain english. What the hell is wrong with you...I am scared that people this stupid live in our world. On the other hand, this must be sure proof of the existance of God. Because there is nothing short of a miracle that could have helped someone this stupid................ use an internet forum....:rolleyes:

Hey, now. Don't flame. Such childish acts will only be a detriment to your overall point, as it's going to be hard for other take what you say seriously in the future. By doing this, you have only hurt your further position in this thread.

1. Bring it on, bitch.

2. I believe we are, as persons, unique. I also believe that we are, as PEOPLE, equal. Nazi fuck.

3. I'm not a communist.

4. I do, as a matter of fact. Why not take a sniff of my foot as I shove it up your candy-Yankee ass?

Bring it on....dude..I am 6'3 I play basketball and water polo and my background is Prussian lol...I will continue to pray for the day when we meet...;)

So I'm a Nazi now...for beleving people are unique...funny how that works out...Guess Ill be the first Jewish, pro indivuduality, pro smaller governement Nazi in the world...Oh wait, thats not a Nazi at all.

Your close enough for me to call you "red"

You smell nasty, thats just gross....I'm actually not a yankee...I'm from California and now live in South Florida...so I'f anything I'm a westerner or a southerner...although south florida isnt really the south.

Omg...this is great...you are really arguing this with me....You are telling me that people that use drugs dont sell drugs?...Yes or no question.
yes, people who use drugs sell drugs, justas people who sue alchol sell alchol but usually people who sell drugs, sell drugs THEN use them. Drugs mules, the lowest level who actaully do the selling are often addicted but the ones on top, the 'Kings' as they call them usually arn't addicted or don't have a serious addiction. The block you where talking about would get higher than the Mule stage on the ladder.

Hey, now. Don't flame. Such childish acts will only be a detriment to your overall point, as it's going to be hard for other take what you say seriously in the future. By doing this, you have only hurt your further position in this thread.

Hey...needle-nuts, pipe down.

Liberal = Higher personal values lower property values, Drastic reform
Conservative = Higher property values lower personal values, Traditional values

I see no book burning morons in this equation
what that Tv evangle called, I forget the name, pat somthing, he is a conservative no?

Liberal = Higher personal values lower property values, Drastic reform
Conservative = Higher property values lower personal values, Traditional values

I see no book burning morons in this equation

Hmm... actually, that's moreso in America.

In a more general, world-friendly, words:

Liberal-Pushes for reform, wants fast change
Conservative-Push for traditional, want little to no change or slow change

Hey...needle-nuts, pipe down.
he was trying to keep this dabate sensable, and you've just flamed him, he had no part in the debate. I think I'm going to report you, you've flamed several people now.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/draf-a22.shtml

Let the article speak for itself. Man, I hate you.

MILITARY DRAFT ASSHOLE NOT CIVILIAN DICK IF THEY WERE IN THE MILITARY THEY WERE EITHER DICKS WHO WANTED A FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION OR WANTED TO FIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

what that Tv evangle called, I forget the name, pat somthing, he is a conservative no?

Generally speaking, most "Televangelists" call themselves conservative, but they truly are not. Infact, many of them could be called Liberal, as they want sweeping change-only to their side, so they call themselves "Conservative".

MILITARY DRAFT ASSHOLE NOT CIVILIAN DICK IF THEY WERE IN THE MILITARY THEY WERE EITHER DICKS WHO WANTED A FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION OR WANTED TO FIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:
And another report. You arn't claiming that the US has never used the draft are you? Vietnam?

Subsdised housing still costs money, and crack costs money, he chooses one or the other. And your saying that a guy who's been thrown out of his work for no good reason whould then have his house taken away as well because he can't afford it. Thats right everyone who can't afford a house (When prices are so expensive) should live in a box on the street!
This is hillarious, really. I'm sure it's an unintended, but it sounds like you're arguing that someone has a right to both smoke crack and have a house to smoke it in paid for by the government. :p

Really, I'm a strong opposer to the so-called "war" on drugs, but there's a flipside to legalized drug use: personal responsibility. If you choose to value your drugs over your rent, that's your problem.

Where did I say religion was a bad thing, but the sterotypical view of a republican is a relgious bible basher.

1. No its not...Republicans are stereotypically bible bashers..what the hell is wrong with you.

2. Steriotyping as well now? You automatically assume I'm a livberial and in favor of Politcial Correctness, I'm not by the way?But lets ahve a deal, you keep your sterotype of all 'Liberals' being Communist, Politcally correct people and I'll keep mine of all 'Concervatives' being bible loving, book-burning illiterate morons?

You wouldnt be stereotyping good things about conseravtives while contering my bad things about liberals...so that means you think loving the bible is a bad thing....and dont you dare tell me people who arnt uber religous still dont love the bible or God...

Generally speaking, most "Televangelists" call themselves conservative, but they truly are not. Infact, many of them could be called Liberal, as they want sweeping change-only to their side, so they call themselves "Conservative".
Good point, depends on what you think conservative and liberal mean, I've always thought conservative-right wing, Liberal left wing.

And another report. You arn't claiming that the US has never used the draft are you? Vietnam?

Have you been reading any of this at all ?

You wouldnt be stereotyping good things about conseravtives while contering my bad things about liberals...so that means you think loving the bible is a bad thing....and dont you dare tell me people who arnt uber religous still dont love the bible or God...
After deoding that....

I know people who arn't 'uber-religious' who still love the bible and god, I have no problem with that. And what the hell does the rest of your post mean, your becomeing hysterical, calm down.

This is hillarious, really. I'm sure it's an unintended, but it sounds like you're arguing that someone has a right to both smoke crack and have a house to smoke it in paid for by the government. :p

Really, I'm a strong opposer to the so-called "war" on drugs, but there's a flipside to legalized drug use: personal responsibility. If you choose to value your drugs over your rent, that's your problem.
Agreed.

Bring it on....dude..I am 6'3 I play basketball and water polo and my background is Prussian lol...I will continue to pray for the day when we meet...;)

So I'm a Nazi now...for beleving people are unique...funny how that works out...Guess Ill be the first Jewish, pro indivuduality, pro smaller governement Nazi in the world...Oh wait, thats not a Nazi at all.

Your close enough for me to call you "red"

You smell nasty, thats just gross....I'm actually not a yankee...I'm from California and now live in South Florida...so I'f anything I'm a westerner or a southerner...although south florida isnt really the south.


Wow...you JUST don't get it!

I'm 6'7", 240 pounds, play football AND basketball, and my background is Saxon (although I don't see how background is incredibly relevant, you Prussian pussy;)).

Oh, you believe people are UNIQUE now, do you? Fine. But you clearly do not believe people are EQUAL on a human-to-human level.

I'm close to being a communist, am I? Funny how that works out, considering I've never said that I believe in any of the basic principles of communism, such as equal share of the GDP(unless you're a government official), or elimination of free enterprise. But, of course, anyone who doesn't support America MUST be a communist...

I cannot believe you seriously thought that I was admitting to smelling nasty...bravo to the American public school system! The term "Yankee" does not refer to those from the North so much anymore...or at least you'd know that if you could put yourself in the shoes of ANY SINGLE PERSON who lives outside of America, but what am I thinking?

Well a debate on communism starts and a strong feel of republicanism/conservatism is felt. Well the point is on communism, and americans for many generations have been taught that it is a horrible thing because it goes against there 'way of life'. But people are to blind to the ideas of socialism even.... Communism is a nobel idea, and the only reason it fails to work in practice is due to greed. Which i refuse to believe is in human nature, i believe greed only exists due to the ways people live and are raised. They are taught not to share, and work together for a common good. but to strive for more money and posessions of there own. I dont believe a communist society could be possoble within the next 150 yrs or more... but even Marx said the revoloution had to come from underneath. That everyone had to want it, but whilst most are feeling the joys and handouts from capitalist systems they arent going to want to change there comfy ways of life. I predict that global economics are heading for a big fall. and alternative systems will be sought out. Now people who are arguing on drugs, immigrants and other things. Remember the topic....

Long live socialism and more rights for the working class

After deoding that....

I know people who arn't 'uber-religious' who still love the bible and god, I have no problem with that. And what the hell does the rest of your post mean, your becomeing hysterical, calm down.

After deoding this....

But you just negativly stereotyped loving the bible as a bad conservative trait.

Good point, depends on what you think conservative and liberal mean, I've always thought conservative-right wing, Liberal left wing.

Ah, but right and left wing are also very relative. If you say that Republicans are right, Dems are left, Conservative and Liberal, you are forgetting that up until rather recently, The Democratic party was conservative and the Republican party was liberal. This may even change in the near future to the opposite again.

Also, although Liberalism and Conservatism can be put as "Left" and "Right", you cannot go onto further define "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" in any great detail, as other countries have vastly different ideas about what is "Conservative" and "Liberal".

I hope iI got the point I was trying to get off.

My opinion of Communism is this.

DEATH TO COMMUNISM!
DEATH TO SOCIALISM!
DEATH TO MARXISM!
DEATH TO LENINISM!
DEATH TO STALINISM!
DEATH TO MAOISM!

UP WITH CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY!

MILITARY DRAFT ASSHOLE NOT CIVILIAN DICK IF THEY WERE IN THE MILITARY THEY WERE EITHER DICKS WHO WANTED A FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION OR WANTED TO FIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

Read this slowly please: CALM...THE...FUCK...DOWN.

Only an American would fly off the handle like that, as is demonstrated by Vietnam. Dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick dick dick dick dick. Good job. But simply put, this Republican twat wants a draft. It's time to deduce the obvious with Professor McLaughlin(me, in case that went over your head)!

Military Draft + Heavy Losses Of Life After This + Republican Fascists In Congress = CIVILIAN DRAFT!!!

woo woo!! Here comes the clue train, next stop: YOU!

My opinion of Communism is this.

DEATH TO COMMUNISM!
DEATH TO SOCIALISM!
DEATH TO MARXISM!
DEATH TO LENINISM!
DEATH TO STALINISM!
DEATH TO MAOISM!

UP WITH CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY!

How very mature.

Democracy is a form Socialism... why do you want to destroy America?

Do you even know what Marxism is?

Do you even know what Lenin was trying to do?

Stalinism was more closely Facsim, the polar opposite of Communism.
Somewhat so the same with Maoism.

And economic liberty if you have the money, and born opportune. Otherwise, you're SOL.

Many, easiest post in a long while.

Go here i f your interested

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Now I must go but please im really more republican than conservative I value less government control and moral values not a Corporate state. ok. Stop bashing Americans we are not greedy corporate evil people. But when there is a problem in a region where it could become a problem for the world (which it has for us) I think we have a right to take a out threats. Iraq and the middle-East harbors terrorist. I think that it was more good than bad what we have done there. Peace is not the same thing as letting things sit. That is false peace. Im just afraid of a false Utopia where everyone is "equal" but really their simple "happy" lives are dictated through a powerful dictator. fahrenheit 451, The Giver, Logan's Run. This is a theoretical result of a totalarian communist empire. Total Liberalism is bad total conservatism is bad.

How very mature.

Democracy is a form Socialism... why do you want to destroy America?

Do you even know what Marxism is?

Do you even know what Lenin was trying to do?

Stalinism was more closely Facsim, the polar opposite of Communism.
Moreso the same with Maoism.

Many, easiest post in a long while.

America is in fact a federal Republic not a democracy

Wow...you JUST don't get it!

I'm 6'7", 240 pounds, play football AND basketball, and my background is Saxon (although I don't see how background is incredibly relevant, you Prussian pussy;)).

Perfect..Ill use this.

Lets see what happens when "equality" comes into play. Its the start of a new season...you go out to play and you find a bunch of 5'3 120 pound guys in uniforms and you think...what is this...amature night? But then you realize they are your new team. They dont think its fair for equalities sake that they couldnt play on the team before. They have never played a minute of football, they have never set foot in the wieght room, and they havnt got the slightest clue, what an I formation is. Yet they HAVE to play because everyone is equal...no matter who is more qualified, they are all humans and equal. It doesnt matter who can juke quicker, who has stickier fingers, or who can find the perfect whole in the D-line. Because everyone is equal.....Then you figure out that the ones working hard perfecting their bodies in the gym, working on pass paterns, and eating right, in other words the ones on top, have been replaced with free-loaders...those who havnt put their work in, havnt shown extroadenary talent and ability, in other words, those who havnt progressed. When season comes they start playing. They win a couple games, they lose a couple games, but it doesnt matter. No one is allowed to win. For winning is not a concent that goes well with equality. Because to have winners you have to have losers. And to have winners and losers you have to compete. Because if you dont compete, then no one wins, and everyone is a loser.

Well a debate on communism starts and a strong feel of republicanism/conservatism is felt.
Excuse me? I feel nothing but contempt for both conservatism, Republicans and communists! Don't assume how or what I'm feeling, please.

My opinion of Communism is this.

DEATH TO COMMUNISM!
DEATH TO SOCIALISM!
DEATH TO MARXISM!
DEATH TO LENINISM!
DEATH TO STALINISM!
DEATH TO MAOISM!

UP WITH CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY!

I agree 100%

America is in fact a federal Republic not a democracy

A true, which is also a form of Socialism, in a sense. I went to vague, like usual. Infact, I cannot believe I made such a mistake, usually I'm the first to piont out that mistake.

You have earned 10 points. Spend them wisely.

A true, which is also a form of Socialism, in a sense. I went to vague, like usual. Infact, I cannot believe I made such a mistake, usually I'm the first to piont out that mistake.

You have earned 10 points. Spend them wisely.

Both Total Communism and total capitalism is inherently wrong there needs to be some privatization and some government control

How very mature.

Democracy is a form Socialism... why do you want to destroy America?



Liar. Socialism is a politcal and economic system, regardless of whether it is the result of an election, a coup, a revolution or anything else.

Democracy isn't a form of anything, no particular political ideology can claim democracy as theirs. Democracy is the election of leaders by voting, what those leaders do is entirely unrelated.

Go here i f your interested

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Now I must go but please im really more republican than conservative I value less government control and moral values not a Corporate state. ok. Stop bashing Americans we are not greedy corporate evil people. But when there is a problem in a region where it could become a problem for the world (which it has for us) I think we have a right to take a out threats. Iraq and the middle-East harbors terrorist. I think that it was more good than bad what we have done there. Peace is not the same thing as letting things sit. That is false peace. Im just afraid of a false Utopia where everyone is "equal" but really their simple "happy" lives are dictated through a powerful dictator. fahrenheit 451, The Giver, Logan's Run. This is a theoretical result of a totalarian communist empire. Total Liberalism is bad total conservatism is bad.

Don't you understand? If what you want is more personal freedom then we, in the end, ALL WANT THE SAME THING. As for the Iraq War, you do NOT have a right to attack a sovereign country that has never attacked your own, has, for ages, remained calm and quiet, and is ruled by an ELECTED leader(even if he is a vicious, genocidal maniac: Saddam hasn't killed in years). Besides: is Iraq really better off now than before? Are Iraqis living better lives? The only reasons Iraqis were dying before this war were because of YOUR sanctions and bombing. The Middle East habours terrorism? So does part Africa. So does parts of the Far East, parts of Europe, parts of South America and the Carribean...EVEN IN AMERICA NOW THERE ARE TERRORIST CELLS! Let me put it in bold, in captial letters, on it's own:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTACK A SOVEREIGN NATION THAT HASN'T STARTED A WAR WITH YOU, ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE WILL OF THE CLOSEST THING TO A WORLD GOVERNING BODY!!!

Are you people stupid? Get a brain, morans!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Marco4/July%20Blog/morans.jpg

Hey...needle-nuts, pipe down.

Your comment really was unnecessary, especially since the person you were responding to was trying to calm people down.

Both Total Communism and total capitalism is inherently wrong there needs to be some privatization and some government control

Exactly. Both seem very nice on paper, but once analyzed, and people are in the equation, you find many problems with. A "middle" ground must be met in the real world, which incorporates ideas and ideals from both systems.

Hey...needle-nuts, pipe down.

Ummm.....maybe you should calm down?

Liar. Socialism is a politcal and economic system, regardless of whether it is the result of an election, a coup, a revolution or anything else.

Democracy isn't a form of anything, no particular political ideology can claim democracy as theirs. Democracy is the election of leaders by voting, what those leaders do is entirely unrelated.

Hey now, I didn't say Democracy was extreme socialism, but it is a form. Socialism is, in essence, a society controlled by the people. What is Democracy(Of course, I made to rash a statement by calling America a Democracy)?

Exactly. Both seem very nice on paper, but once analyzed, and people are in the equation, you find many problems with. A "middle" ground must be met in the real world, which incorporates ideas and ideals from both systems.

No they dont both seem very nice on paper. Only to some people. Notice the poll above...not everyone voted pro communism.

Perfect..Ill use this.

Lets see what happens when "equality" comes into play. Its the start of a new season...you go out to play and you find a bunch of 5'3 120 pound guys in uniforms and you think...what is this...amature night? But then you realize they are your new team. They dont think its fair for equalities sake that they couldnt play on the team before. They have never played a minute of football, they have never set foot in the wieght room, and they havnt got the slightest clue, what an I formation is. Yet they HAVE to play because everyone is equal...no matter who is more qualified, they are all humans and equal. It doesnt matter who can juke quicker, who has stickier fingers, or who can find the perfect whole in the D-line. Because everyone is equal.....Then you figure out that the ones working hard perfecting their bodies in the gym, working on pass paterns, and eating right, in other words the ones on top, have been replaced with free-loaders...those who havnt put their work in, havnt shown extroadenary talent and ability, in other words, those who havnt progressed. When season comes they start playing. They win a couple games, they lose a couple games, but it doesnt matter. No one is allowed to win. For winning is not a concent that goes well with equality. Because to have winners you have to have losers. And to have winners and losers you have to compete. Because if you dont compete, then no one wins, and everyone is a loser.


And the loser is: you.

That is a total misconception of what I believe!

Economic equality is different: it is about accepting the right of everyone to choose their own path, and the fact is, everyone should be able to make a living based on what career path they chose. It shouldn't be that the guy who goes and gets a Master's in Physics or a PhD in Medicine or an MBA should have all slices of the pie when the people who simply didn't want to take that path, or because they had other interests, are left to starve. You want sports analogies? Here's a short one to describe my beliefs:

How do you play a 140 pound baseball pitcher against a 300 pound football offensive lineman? You don't: they're on thier own playing fields, but in the grand scheme of things, they could both be equally skilled athletes.

Understand?

Anyhow, it's been great arguing, I love a good argument. My good friend Aust: keep up the good fight. My, ::clears throat:: "friend" Atlantian Islands: just think it over for a minute, will ya? I used to be like you...

Im tired of arguing with people about the iraq war so im not going to and ill just hope you may someday realise your mistakes.

And the loser is: you.

That is a total misconception of what I believe!

Economic equality is different: it is about accepting the right of everyone to choose their own path, and the fact is, everyone should be able to make a living based on what career path they chose. It shouldn't be that the guy who goes and gets a Master's in Physics or a PhD in Medicine or an MBA should have all slices of the pie when the people who simply didn't want to take that path, or because they had other interests, are left to starve. You want sports analogies? Here's a short one to describe my beliefs:

How do you play a 140 pound baseball pitcher against a 300 pound football offensive lineman? You don't: they're on thier own playing fields, but in the grand scheme of things, they could both be equally skilled athletes.

Understand?

Anyhow, it's been great arguing, I love a good argument. My good friend Aust: keep up the good fight. My, ::clears throat:: "friend" Atlantian Islands: just think it over for a minute, will ya? I used to be like you...

:gundge: :gundge:

And the loser is: you.

That is a total misconception of what I believe!

Economic equality is different: it is about accepting the right of everyone to choose their own path, and the fact is, everyone should be able to make a living based on what career path they chose. It shouldn't be that the guy who goes and gets a Master's in Physics or a PhD in Medicine or an MBA should have all slices of the pie when the people who simply didn't want to take that path, or because they had other interests, are left to starve. You want sports analogies? Here's a short one to describe my beliefs:

How do you play a 140 pound baseball pitcher against a 300 pound football offensive lineman? You don't: they're on thier own playing fields, but in the grand scheme of things, they could both be equally skilled athletes.

Understand?

Anyhow, it's been great arguing, I love a good argument. My good friend Aust: keep up the good fight. My, ::clears throat:: "friend" Atlantian Islands: just think it over for a minute, will ya? I used to be like you...

Of course I understand what your trying to say...But I am refuting it. You cant have economic equality because there are ALWAYS going to be people who want to work harder, who are overachievers, and who are not satisfied with the life they have but want a better one. You will also, unfortunatly have the people who dont want to work for whatever reason, who are lazy, who prefer a life of crime because you dont have to pay taxes, work as hard, etc....

Hey now, I didn't say Democracy was extreme socialism, but it is a form. Socialism is, in essence, a society controlled by the people. What is Democracy(Of course, I made to rash a statement by calling America a Democracy)?

A capitalist can be elected by a democracy. A monkey can be elected by democracy.

The fact that there is a democracy has no bearing on what ideology will be held by the elected government.

Socialism is a system of strong central government which tends to support nationalisation of industry and a welfare state.

Now, that could be an elected government, a hereditary ruler, a coup d'etat - who knows.

Likewise, a fascist, communist, capitalist, monkey cabinet, ANY ideology could be elected into power by democracy. It doesn't have to be a socialist one.

:gundge: :gundge:


You incredibly, undeniably, outrageously, undeniably stupid jackass.

Your comment really was unnecessary, especially since the person you were responding to was trying to calm people down.

That's the problem of threads like this. As soon as you can imagine, people will start flaming/going off-topic and this thread will be closed. However, that thread is really unnecessary and emotionfull...

You incredibly, undeniably, outrageously, undeniably stupid jackass.

No you are the jack ass

No you are the jack ass
you both are humorless jackasses for getting into a flaiming war on the interweb. :rolleyes:

I mean, a little ad hominem makes for fun sport, but you guys are taking it to grade-school levels. If you got 'em, smoke 'em and mellow, guys. ;)

No you are the jack ass

This thread is asinine.

Who decides who is "talented" enough to lead? What safeguards are in place the those in power won't become currupt or blinded by power? You seem to have a great deal of faith in this imaginary "elite".

Personally, I am of the opinion that there is no one more qualified to make decisions for me then me.
Yes, and from the moment that everyone begins to think this way, we have chaos. "oh, I'll murder this person today because they pissed me off"...yes, this will happen. Some form of regulation must exist.

Talented enough to lead would imply complete absence of bias, an ability to make clear decisions that take into consideration all, or at least most, factors and who are able to do so with the better of a society in mind rather than purely personal gain. They would be of outstanding background and achievement, somewhat like the greatest intellectuals, scientists, artists, philosophers and so on of their time. What safeguards would exist? Perhaps emotional supression via the use of medications which may be available in the future, a form of sacrifice in the name of power. This sounds inhuman, yet what better arbiter of justice than one who is completely free of personal prejudices associated with emotionality? This is an EXTREME. What I could see happening is ensuring that the elite is of impeccable morals and standards, and is kept under the constant scrutiny of a monitoring body consisting of members of the public. It will be completely accountable to the general populace. Courts will be an authority in their own right, and will be likewise impartial, and thus will act as incentive to ensure the elite remains efficient. This is the only way that a society where all needs and wants are satisfied by technology can operate smoothly. It sounds like science fiction, but remember, science fiction is always likely to be tomorrow's reality.

My reason for the belief that their has to be such a form of government is that if there is complete anarchy personal freedom would be completely jeopardised, and we would return to a jungle society, with the survival of the fittest.

you both are humorless jackasses for getting into a flaiming war on the interweb. :rolleyes:

I mean, a little ad hominem makes for fun sport, but you guys are taking it to grade-school levels. If you got 'em, smoke 'em and mellow, guys. ;)

Lol...dude, I just realized whats on your profile. Thats awesome!! lol I feel honored, man, thanks.:D

And the loser is: you.

That is a total misconception of what I believe!

Economic equality is different: it is about accepting the right of everyone to choose their own path, and the fact is, everyone should be able to make a living based on what career path they chose. It shouldn't be that the guy who goes and gets a Master's in Physics or a PhD in Medicine or an MBA should have all slices of the pie when the people who simply didn't want to take that path, or because they had other interests, are left to starve. You want sports analogies? Here's a short one to describe my beliefs:

How do you play a 140 pound baseball pitcher against a 300 pound football offensive lineman? You don't: they're on thier own playing fields, but in the grand scheme of things, they could both be equally skilled athletes.

Understand?

Anyhow, it's been great arguing, I love a good argument. My good friend Aust: keep up the good fight. My, ::clears throat:: "friend" Atlantian Islands: just think it over for a minute, will ya? I used to be like you...
Thanks mate, good anology, I can use a British one, whos mroe skilled David Beckham or Charlie Hodgeson, who deserves ore pay? Answe, nithier. If they work especially hard they deserve more, but just for existing and doing a job they don't.

Communism as an idea isn't bad. When you introduce large amounts of humans into the equation it becomes nearly impossible to maintain.

I think communism can work in smaller groups though. Aren't there still communes that were started up in the 60's around?

I am not so sure what to say of the communes :P

Anyone who refers to Communism as anything that has been done so far doesnt know enough about it to have an opinion. that was Lenin-Stalin-Marxism
(and marx said if thats marxism call me capitalist) SO!. Actual communism is Anarcho-Communism. ANyone countering this post with any reference to russia is obviously stupid and effected greatly and easily by propaganda. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Anarcho Communism is great! and so was Lenin-Stalin-Marxism! with a touch of Gorbachov. Good man. PROPER communist.

Red Front!

I think communism was a good invention, gives another good target for fascists to beat up ;D

Communism is good. Without it, we'd only have liberal scum to beat up.

I am from a former communist country, and communism to us was worse than nazism. Communism just robbs from people who actualy deserve the money because they work! I dont want some fat idiot watching pron and drinking beer and working as a toilet cleaner getting my money for doing nothing!

I am from a former communist country, and communism to us was worse than nazism. Communism just robbs from people who actualy deserve the money because they work! I dont want some fat idiot watching pron and drinking bear and working as a toilet cleaner getting my money for doing nothing!

Yeah, same thing in capitalist countries, but with social welfare. We should get rid of that as well as Communism.

Yeah, same thing in capitalist countries, but with social welfare. We should get rid of that as well as Communism.
What you mean taht thing that will save your ass when you get fired. We need MORE of a Welfare state. And higher taxes on the high earners, (90% on those who earn over 1,000,000)

Anyone who refers to Communism as anything that has been done so far doesnt know enough about it to have an opinion. that was Lenin-Stalin-Marxism
(and marx said if thats marxism call me capitalist) SO!. Actual communism is Anarcho-Communism. ANyone countering this post with any reference to russia is obviously stupid and effected greatly and easily by propaganda. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Anarcho Communism is great! and so was Lenin-Stalin-Marxism! with a touch of Gorbachov. Good man. PROPER communist.

Another non-thread reader. I've seen that argument, I stripped it, bent it over, and did nasty things to it. Then I poured the smouldering remains down the toilet.

Another non-thread reader. I've seen that argument, I stripped it, bent it over, and did nasty things to it. Then I poured the smouldering remains down the toilet.
Go on then, disporve it. Are are you all mouth?

He's already disproved those arguments. Just read back.

Thus, why not leave power in the hands of an elite few, able of making crucial decisions whilst remaining aware of matters which concern the populace?
The long answer: Read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
The short answer (which has nothing to do with Brave New World, but it's in my words): Because having a choice is always better than not having a choice.

Ideally, that would happen in perfect capitalismSounds like a "works good on paper..." type of thing.

The point is that capitalism is the best system. Not a perfect system, just the best.Replace "capitalism" with "communism."

However, I seriously think you could make communism work in one country (or more feasibly in area within country) as long as everybody was ideologically commited and there was some democratic frame work for decision making.Well said, and factual.

Where has real laissez-faire ever been tried? What may have been called laissez-faire actually involved considerable government priviledge.This is a conundrum. Laissez-faire hasn't been tried because laissez-faire means a lack of government interference. However, economies with governments are inseparable from government interference.

Communism is a political ideaology wherein the government is given complete control of industry, and swings the balance of power too far in favor the government.Government? Who said anything about a government?

Attempting to establish Communism in one community or nation is a futile effort. Were such a state achieved in one nation, it would immediately suffer the depredations of its neighbors. Why? Because it lacks any form of government that can raise a professional army (or even a militia) to oppose the invaders.False. It's not impossible for an army to be raised in a communist society, i.e. in Spain during the Revolution.

Replace "capitalism" with "communism."

That makes about as much sense as replace "capitalism" with "cabbage patch doll oligarchical market social-democracy.", for reasons I've outlined. Communism is simply incompatible with reality.

Well said, and factual

Democratic communism only compounds the problems with communism, or indeed any socialist system, and that is the inevitable economic failure, the failure to bring the better life promised. The people, seeing this failure will logically blame the leaders, in any sort of democratic socialism, these leaders can be replaced.

I don't see the ideological committment in general surviving failure. It wioll stay in a few diehards, but most will see that their faith was all BS.

You could get one of several outcomes:


Election of new socialists frequently as the old ones fail (assuming the people continue to believe, which is the least likely outcome)
Removal of socialist government entirely (assuming the opposite)
A series of bloody revolutions as one group of failing socialist leaders are replaced with the next, who in turn fail, and must bge replaced with the next lot
Parliamentary, or cabinet revolts (no-confidence votes and the like)


Historically, socialist leaders (be they communist, or fascist) deal with this problem by instituting a totalitarian state like the USSR. Indeed, to enforce fully the economic plan requires such an apparatus for reasons I previously outlined.

False. It's not impossible for an army to be raised in a communist society, i.e. in Spain during the Revolution.

An Army is a professional state institution, what is formed without government is a militia, of course the problem here is that warfare has become increasingly an occupation for dedicated, well-equipped, and well-trained professionals.

Democracy is a form Socialism

No, it isn't. Democracy and capitalism have a big common denominator, the soverighty of the individual, in terms of democracy, it is expressed in his right to a vote, in capitalism, his rights to property.

Socialism totally destroys this.

Communisms offers too many oppurtunities for free riders and assumes the state (or "the people") can allocate the economy's resources accuratly, which it usually doesn't This makes capitalism more effiecient then communism and if two society's are in competion the communists will lose out. Communsim works but just not as well and that is why it is doomed to ideological extinction.

The other thing (assuming the two societies are side by side) is that the communist state must station a large army on the border, with fences, patrols, dogs, mines, etc, to keep the people in, which imposes a greater burden on the economy; or the people will leave for the better opportunities in the capitalist society, which means it will eventually collapse for lack of people to do the work.

The other thing (assuming the two societies are side by side) is that the communist state must station a large army on the border, with fences, patrols, dogs, mines, etc, to keep the people in, which imposes a greater burden on the economy; or the people will leave for the better opportunities in the capitalist society, which means it will eventually collapse for lack of people to do the work.
Why? I can see why people would want to flee a stalinist society (USSR) but why flee a communist one? A true communist society would offfer pleanty of oppertunitys.

Communisms offers too many oppurtunities for free riders and assumes the state (or "the people") can allocate the economy's resources accuratly, which it usually doesn't This makes capitalism more effiecient then communism and if two society's are in competion the communists will lose out. Communsim works but just not as well and that is why it is doomed to ideological extinction.

Agreed. Communism assumes that everyone will do as they should, which basically impossible. It has too many leap holes in which somone can easilly outsmart the system.

Why? I can see why people would want to flee a stalinist society (USSR) but why flee a communist one? A true communist society would offfer plenty of opportunities.

BAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Firstly, what Stalin did was made necessary by the need to make communist theory fit into reality; secondly, the economic failures that any socialist system creates reduce opportunity. You can't argue for communism by making the prior assumption that it will work, or assuming that there will be a fundamental change in human nature. I've shown here numerous reasons why it won't work.

This problem is admitted to by none other than Karl Marx, in the Manifesto, he advocates the state nicking all the property of anyone who attempts to leave.

The pro-communist arguments here all have something in common. I shall illustrate by using a mathematics analogy. The pro-communist arguments are like mathematical proofs with "And Then A Miracle Happens" in the middle.

BAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Firstly, what Stalin did was made necessary by the need to make communist theory fit into reality; secondly, the economic failures that any socialist system creates reduce opportunity. You can't argue for communism by making the prior assumption that it will work, or assuming that there will be a fundamental change in human nature. I've shown here numerous reasons why it won't work.

Stalin was not communist, how many times must i say that, a communist system (Or what is ee as a communist system) is demcratic, you can vote a communist party out of goverment. To me communism means that everyone starts on a equal footing, you get the same standard of education, the same chances as everyone else, you get more money and better pay if you work hard and achive more than other people.

This problem is admitted to by none other than Karl Marx, in the Manifesto, he advocates the state nicking all the property of anyone who attempts to leave.
Seeing as i balive in the state owning everying thing I have no problem witht that.

The pro-communist arguments here all have something in common. I shall illustrate by using a mathematics analogy. The pro-communist arguments are like mathematical proofs with "And Then A Miracle Happens" in the middle.
What mirical? I see no mirical, just a change in attudes.

Stalin was not communist, how many times must i say that, a communist system (Or what is ee as a communist system) is demcratic, you can vote a communist party out of goverment. To me communism means that everyone starts on a equal footing, you get the same standard of education, the same chances as everyone else, you get more money and better pay if you work hard and achive more than other people.

Already refuted that before, if you can't be bothered to read it, don't bring it up.

Communism cannot co-exist with democracy. That point was made on this very page! I shall repeat it:

Democratic communism only compounds the problems with communism, or indeed any socialist system, and that is the inevitable economic failure, the failure to bring the better life promised. The people, seeing this failure will logically blame the leaders, in any sort of democratic socialism, these leaders can be replaced.

I don't see the ideological committment in general surviving failure. It wioll stay in a few diehards, but most will see that their faith was all BS.

You could get one of several outcomes:


Election of new socialists frequently as the old ones fail (assuming the people continue to believe, which is the least likely outcome
Removal of socialist government entirely (assuming the opposite)
A series of bloody revolutions as one group of failing socialist leaders are replaced with the next, who in turn fail, and must be replaced with the next lot
Parliamentary, or cabinet revolts (no-confidence votes and the like)


Historically, socialist leaders (be they communist, or fascist) deal with this problem by instituting a totalitarian state like the USSR. Indeed, to enforce fully the economic plan requires such an apparatus for reasons I previously outlined.

Seeing as i balive in the state owning everying thing I have no problem witht that.

You have no problem with theft? No problem with denying freedom of movement, or speech, or association, or any other freedom?

What mirical? I see no mirical, just a change in attudes.

No, a fundamental change in human nature, the elimination of self-interest.

Already refuted that before, if you can't be bothered to read it, don't bring it up.

Communism cannot co-exist with democracy. That point was made on this very page! I shall repeat it:

Democratic communism only compounds the problems with communism, or indeed any socialist system, and that is the inevitable economic failure, the failure to bring the better life promised. The people, seeing this failure will logically blame the leaders, in any sort of democratic socialism, these leaders can be replaced.
You presume that communism will fail here, and I see no reson why it should. economically a communist state can become very powerful, if it spends it's nation buget wisely. As the state controls everyhting things can be co-ordiated by the state to impoorve economic prospects. That would bring the better life promised.

I don't see the ideological committment in general surviving failure. It wioll stay in a few diehards, but most will see that their faith was all BS.[/quote
presumeing there was a failure.

You could get one of several outcomes:

Election of new socialists frequently as the old ones fail (assuming the people continue to believe, which is the least likely outcome
if the old ones fail, and new socialists might not immidetly fail.

Removal of socialist government entirely (assuming the opposite) if it fails then why not do this, i ahve no problem with this.

A series of bloody revolutions as one group of failing socialist leaders are replaced with the next, who in turn fail, and must be replaced with the next lot presuming they fail.

Historically, socialist leaders (be they communist, or fascist) deal with this problem by instituting a totalitarian state like the USSR. Indeed, to enforce fully the economic plan requires such an apparatus for reasons I previously outlined.

why should enforcing the economic plan be inforced as such. A totalatarian state would not ahve to be enforced if thngs actually worked, as they could do. Historically a true communist goverment never got to power and thus we can't know the results. I balive that had Lenin not died then he might have created one but who knows?

Becasides I'm not actaully a communist myslef, it's just quite interesting arguing a communist POV. I'm actually a Democratic Socialist.


You have no problem with theft? No problem with denying freedom of movement, or speech, or association, or any other freedom?



No, a fundamental change in human nature, the elimination of self-interest.

You presume that communism will fail here, and I see no reson why it should. economically a communist state can become very powerful, if it spends it's nation buget wisely. As the state controls everyhting things can be co-ordiated by the state to impoorve economic prospects. That would bring the better life promised.

Other than the fact that every single attempt has failed?

(BTW, you really need to think about the tag usage, and plan it well, your post isn't very coherient)

You're making the assumption that state central planning will be superior to many (perhaps millions) of plans in private competative enterprise. This assumption has no basis in theory or reality. If a central plan is flawed, then its economic chaos. Socialist central planning cannot work because socialism is not a positive economic system. Its sole function is to destroy the competative price system of capitalism. The competative price system provides all the producers and consumers in a capitalist economy the information needed to decide production, distribution, and consumption. The destruction of the price system introduces randomness in production and consumption, and shortages. Arbitrary pricing simply destroys an economy.

There is no reason for the leaders of socialism to improve economic prospects, and no information for them to know how.

Here's why capitalism works better. If some of the individual, decentralised plans fail, then it OK because enough will succeed to keep us going well, and the resources and capital can be reinvested. Production, distribution, and consumption decisions are informed well. Overproduction, and/or decreased demand will drive prices down, reducing the profitability, and therefore the production. Shortage, and/or increased demand will increase prices, increasing the profitability operating to increase production. We have not only a great margin of error, but better information for firms to plan on.

Historically a true communist goverment never got to power and thus we can't know the results. I balive that had Lenin not died then he might have created one but who knows?

Bollocks, I have shown it already.

If Communism is so great, why did so many people have to be killed inorder for it not to be overthrown? Or better yet, why did all ands till do, Communist Countries make laws forbidding people to leave the country?

Also taking money from rich people and giving it to the poor will never work , because once the rich are poor from who do you take the money? That is why Communism failed, it works fine in the first couple of years, with all the stolen money in your hands, but then there are no more rich people to earn and take from.

Also people just don't want Communism, only a few bored western jerkofs claiming to be educated (educated my ass, when supporting something so backward, you should be considered ripe for retard school), and some poor people to lazy to work as hard as the others.

If Communism is so great, why did so many people have to be killed inorder for it not to be overthrown? Or better yet, why did all ands till do, Communist Countries make laws forbidding people to leave the country?

Also taking money from rich people and giving it to the poor will never work , because once the rich are poor from who do you take the money? That is why Communism failed, it works fine in the first couple of years, with all the stolen money in your hands, but then there are no more rich people to earn and take from.

Also people just don't want Communism, only a few bored western jerkofs claiming to be educated (educated my ass, when supporting something so backward, you should be considered ripe for retard school), and some poor people to lazy to work as hard as the others.

Educated my ass? hmm. The simple mindedness amuses me. I myself am a Bolshevik and am an extremely well educated individual wheras you sir, cannot even construct a simple debate and it would appear from the tendencies in your debate that you are a Capitalist.
I want communism, 10000 people in Britain Want communism, so thats not it either.

I must refer to something provided in an earlier communist debate (PS if you think that Russia was communist you are an idiot and not deserving of an opinion, it was State Capitalist)

100 workers produce 5000 X per day. They work 5 hours.
a machine is invented to Double productivity.

Capitalists sack 50 workers.
State Capitalists produce twice as much.
Socialists lower worker hours.

Read some Hazlitt.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

By the way, there is no difference between practical communism and state capitalism. The term is merely used as a convenient label to stash communist failures.

You shouldn't accuse others of being unable to construct a simple debate when you resort to such transparently deceptive devices.

That makes about as much sense as replace "capitalism" with "cabbage patch doll oligarchical market social-democracy.", for reasons I've outlined. Communism is simply incompatible with reality.That's nonsensical, for reasons I've outlined. Communism is perfectly compatible with reality. Laissez-faire capitalism is simply incompatible with reality.

Democratic communism only compounds the problems with communism, or indeed any socialist system, and that is the inevitable economic failure, the failure to bring the better life promised. The people, seeing this failure will logically blame the leaders, in any sort of democratic socialism, these leaders can be replaced.Leaders? Who said anything about leaders? While representative democracy is a form of democracy, it is certainly not the only one nor the best one.

An Army is a professional state institution, what is formed without government is a militia, of course the problem here is that warfare has become increasingly an occupation for dedicated, well-equipped, and well-trained professionals.Eh. Fine, we'll go with militia. The poster that I'd replied to said that it was impossible to raise an army or militia because there was no state, which was just silly.

The competative price system provides all the producers and consumers in a capitalist economy the information needed to decide production, distribution, and consumption. The destruction of the price system introduces randomness in production and consumption, and shortages. Arbitrary pricing simply destroys an economy.

Two problems here:
While it is true that the price system supplies the information needed to decide production, distribution and consumption, it is not the only method of supplying and obtaining this information. I'd argue that it's not the best one either.

You've also not shown that a price system, any price system is necessary in a communist society.

That's nonsensical, for reasons I've outlined. Communism is perfectly compatible with reality.

Communism requires a fundamental change in human nature, as well as an abundance of all necessary materials and isolation from non-communist societies. It needs people who are actually equal. None of these conditions is possible.

No one has shown that fundamental change in human nature is possible, and every attempt to bring it has only changed humans from living to dead.

Abundance of all necessary materials doesn't naturally occurr.

Without abundance of all necessary materials, isolation is merely a recipe for extinction.

Different people are inequal in many ways, a single person is inequal to himself at different times.

Laissez-faire capitalism is simply incompatible with reality.

Nonsense. It is the only economic system that is based entirely in reality (i.e. without introducing the conceit of the state). Laissez-faire capitalism is simply people voluntarily trading goods and services, to get the things the need and want by trading some of what they have. It grows naturally out of the facts of differences between people in terms of talent and ability, and out of differences between certain parts of Earth.

Leaders? Who said anything about leaders? While representative democracy is a form of democracy, it is certainly not the only one nor the best one.

Not the ludicrous "direct democracy" fantasy again. An entire social class, or community, cannot seize power. Instead, it can only appoint representatives to take that power. No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will always be in the hands of the few, regardless of whether that government is communist or capitalist. The only question is how much power we want that government to have, and Marx made the mistake of assuming that the more power the government had, the more power the masses would have. This is a very serious "have your cake and eat it too" fallacy; you cannot simultaneously give more power to the masses and to the government!

You never actually showed that it was possible, or practical.

While it is true that the price system supplies the information needed to decide production, distribution and consumption, it is not the only method of supplying and obtaining this information. I'd argue that it's not the best one either.

Suggest an alternative, and tell me why it is better. The free market price system has meant more wealth than ever before, and more widely distributed too.

Stalin was not communist, how many times must i say that, a communist system (Or what is ee as a communist system) is demcratic, you can vote a communist party out of goverment. To me communism means that everyone starts on a equal footing, you get the same standard of education, the same chances as everyone else, you get more money and better pay if you work hard and achive more than other people.

Right. So what if you amass that money and then pass it on to your children? Will they not be born inherently privileged? Do you suggest that the government abolishes inheritance or confiscates all money upon one's death? Or that it heavily taxes one's earnings? Wouldn't it be unfair to tax money one has earned fairly? This merely leads back to capitalism.

Biafra, Aldous Huxley deals mostly with supposition. I will read it anyway, yet all such works are theoretical at best, and are the author's best guesses, however educated they may be. Plato makes compelling arguments for having an elite ruling. I still believe the best way to any future utopian society is via capitalism.

Excellent arguments Disraeliland :)

Great doctrine, wrong species.

Well put :p

Educated my ass? hmm. The simple mindedness amuses me. I myself am a Bolshevik and am an extremely well educated individual wheras you sir, cannot even construct a simple debate and it would appear from the tendencies in your debate that you are a Capitalist.
I want communism, 10000 people in Britain Want communism, so thats not it either.



So because 10,000 people want it, they ruin the other 60 millions people lives. :rolleyes:

As for Stalin not being Communist, is like Hitler not being a Nazi, complete apologists rubbish.

Right. So what if you amass that money and then pass it on to your children? Will they not be born inherently privileged? Do you suggest that the government abolishes inheritance or confiscates all money upon one's death? Or that it heavily taxes one's earnings? Wouldn't it be unfair to tax money one has earned fairly? This merely leads back to capitalism.

Pritty much as you said, you grow up witht he same standed of education as everyone else. You may live in a better hose, but once you pass 18 your out of the hosue and into low level housing like everyone esle, then you can work upa agin.

Great doctrine, wrong species.
You've written my own conclusion far more succintly than I could've.
Thanks! ;)

What do you guys think about communism. Is it bad? Good? So and so? I'm especially interested in knowing if you have personally experienced communism and still think it's a good ideology.
Never personally lived in a communist country, but I find the entire concept of communism reprehensible.

As for Stalin not being Communist, is like Hitler not being a Nazi, complete apologists rubbish.

Well, actually, it's a little different.

You see, Hitler used the Nazi party to gain power, and was given power by the people

Stalin killed all of the Communists, and installed himself as dictator with absolute power.

A little different here.

Well, actually, it's a little different.

You see, Hitler used the Nazi party to gain power, and was given power by the people

Stalin killed all of the Communists, and installed himself as dictator with absolute power.

A little different here.

So what? Hitler purged rival Nazis. Mobsters kill rival mobsters all the time. Does that mean Hitler's not a Nazi, or that mobsters aren't mobsters?

Aaha! put the weight on the plank and it will snap!!!! ;) Communism was ELECTED into power too :) sure there was only ever ONE election but it one all the same

Well, actually, it's a little different.

You see, Hitler used the Nazi party to gain power, and was given power by the people

Stalin killed all of the Communists, and installed himself as dictator with absolute power.

A little different here.

Ever hear of the night of the long knives? Hitler assassinated Ernst Rohm and the entire leadership of the SA because they posed an internal threat to his power - in principle not at all different from Stalin's assassination of Trotsky and others.

Aaha! put the weight on the plank and it will snap!!!! ;) Communism was ELECTED into power too :) sure there was only ever ONE election but it one all the same

If you're talking about the USSR, you're wrong. Lenin pushed for a democratic parliament after the provisional government was destroyed, but when the Bolsheviks achieved a minority in the first election he abolished it and made himself a dictator.

Educated my ass? hmm. The simple mindedness amuses me. I myself am a Bolshevik and am an extremely well educated individual wheras you sir, cannot even construct a simple debate and it would appear from the tendencies in your debate that you are a Capitalist.
I want communism, 10000 people in Britain Want communism, so thats not it either.


10000 people? I think your figures are a little off. Name one constituency where a communist has even achieved even third or fourth position in a local election.

If you're talking about the USSR, you're wrong. Lenin pushed for a democratic parliament after the provisional government was destroyed, but when the Bolsheviks achieved a minority in the first election he abolished it and made himself a dictator.

Exactly. In virtually every country that has had communism, communists have come to power by the barrel of a gun: Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, North Korea, ad infinitum.

So what? Hitler purged rival Nazis. Mobsters kill rival mobsters all the time. Does that mean Hitler's not a Nazi, or that mobsters aren't mobsters?

True. However, Hitler was a Nazi by both what he said and what he did. He killed other Nazi's to gain power, but he himself was at the very least a "Light-Nazi", in the sense that he did at least what the Nazi party was trying to do(He, of course, decided to add his own swing to it). With mobsters, you have mobsters killing mobsters.

With those two, you actually have a Nazi or a Mobster.

However, with Stalin, you don't even have Communism. You have the exact polar opposite, which was more closely related to Fascism. Stalin did absolutely nothing Communist. You can't look at what they call themselves, you must look at what they do. And what Stalin did was the antithesis of Communism. He had no ambitions towards a Communist country, only to gaining himself more power. He only used the Communist ruse to gain this power.

Communism requires a fundamental change in human nature, as well as an abundance of all necessary materials and isolation from non-communist societies. It needs people who are actually equal. None of these conditions is possible."Human nature" is irrelevent, due to the fact that it doesn't exist. While it is true that you can say that most humans will act in a certain way, it is untrue that all humans act in a certain way. All it would take, initially, is people whose natures don't fit the traditional views of human nature.

Abundance of all necessary materials doesn't naturally occurr.There is currently more than enough food for everyone in the world.
I would assume that such a society would also use as many renewable resources as possible: i.e. wind, solar power, industrial hemp.

Without abundance of all necessary materials, isolation is merely a recipe for extinction.Why would the society need to isolate itself from non communist societies when the communist society would most likely be better than non communist societies? More than likely the non communist societies would see the communist society as a threat and try to eliminate it.

Different people are inequal in many ways, a single person is inequal to himself at different times.People don't have to be equal, all they have to do is decide that society will view them as equal.

Nonsense. It is the only economic system that is based entirely in reality (i.e. without introducing the conceit of the state). Laissez-faire capitalism is simply people voluntarily trading goods and services, to get the things the need and want by trading some of what they have. It grows naturally out of the facts of differences between people in terms of talent and ability, and out of differences between certain parts of Earth.It is unrealistic to assume that a government will not get involved with the economy. The only way for laissez-faire to happen is if you have an anarcho-capitalistic system.

Not the ludicrous "direct democracy" fantasy again. An entire social class, or community, cannot seize power. Really? A militia can't be made up of an entire community?

<snip> Stuff about Karl Marx. I agree, Marx was wrong. The issue here is that Marx isn't the be all end all of all forms of communism.

You never actually showed that it was possible, or practical.Directly democratic communities already exist, thus showing it's possible. Whether or not it's practical would depend upon how involved the members of the community are in the democratic process.

Suggest an alternative, and tell me why it is better. The free market price system has meant more wealth than ever before, and more widely distributed too.I would think that at the society meetings, people would discuss the (material) things that they want the society to supply them, and how many. If the society deems it worth it to expend resources to obtain those things, it will do so.

This is better because it's more democratic. It cuts out the middleman (the seller of goods) and makes a line directly from the society to the individual, the way it should be. It is also better because it keeps all of the resources in the society in the hands of the society, and doesn't concentrate it in the hands of the few the way "profit" does. This also leads to more democracy, by the way.

But how does society know what people want? The seller will, its his buisness. If his sales drop he lowers his price if he sells out early he raises it. The "middle man" provides what people want, he takes the risk he recieves his reward, profit.

Pritty much as you said, you grow up witht he same standed of education as everyone else. You may live in a better hose, but once you pass 18 your out of the hosue and into low level housing like everyone esle, then you can work upa agin.
What if your parents imparted you with wealth? Or would there be laws to hinder one from doing so? Otherwise, you would still manage to live a privileged life regardless of your personal merit.

Okay you wanted to hear my opinion:
I say we burn all the comunist loving bastards in the world.

There has never been a communist state, because communism is state-less!
States like The USSR you call socialistic (republics). Futher more, might I remember you to the ones that really LIBERATED Europe from the Nazi's? That was the USSR and communist were the ones who were the most in the resistance. And people can learn to behave properly, nowadays, we behave different than in the pre-historic/ medieval times. We have learned to accept other kinds of people (ok, most of us do). So people can be formed for communism. I really want to see it another turn, but than with more freedom of speech.

Just to point off first, I am a Theoretical Communist, however I differ from others in the fact that I do not want Communism, for many reasons. I believe this system can be good, but the implemtation is, inherently, impossible on a large scale. In Reality, a Communist state cannot exist on a world-wide basis, nor should it. It is impossible. However, it can, and does, exist on lower-scale, small population communities, which would not exist given any other system.

"Human nature" is irrelevent, due to the fact that it doesn't exist. While it is true that you can say that most humans will act in a certain way, it is untrue that all humans act in a certain way. All it would take, initially, is people whose natures don't fit the traditional views of human nature.


Remember that all humans are animals, and all animals have instinct. This instinct is what "human nature" is. All animals strive to exist, as do all humans. However, with humans, it becomes more complicated, as with sentient thought. You find that all humans want to spread on their lineage, which is the basic instinct of all animals. With humans, you find that there is more than one way, the sexual way, to spread lineage. This encompasses knowlege, and more importantly ideas. This urge to spread one's lineage is present in EVERYONE, regardless of what they may think. It is basic animal instinct. This also creates one's urge to be great, for the greater you are, the better chances you have of passing on your lineage. In a small society, such large urges(See Stalin, Hitler, Alexander The Great, etc) for greatness won't be as prevalent, as not only must he people work together, and thus socially be "equal", to survive, but also the chances reduced greatly by the population being small enough to not encourage many of these people to come along.

However, in a large society, there is less of a need, and less of a feeling, for working for the "common good". There is a huge difference between Ten out of 100 and 1000 out of 10000. It is easier to get 9000 people to produce enough than it is to get 90 people to do the same. Thus, you find that in large societies, there is the general feeling of "other people can do my work". Add to this the social pressures involved in smaller societies vs. larger, and you find a huge hole in the Communist thought.



That was the only issue I felt needed addresses here.

Communism... The perfect Government.

Question: When Marx claimed that the state would "wither away" to create perfect communism, how was this supposed to be achieved without mass chaos?

Question: When Marx claimed that the state would "wither away" to create perfect communism, how was this supposed to be achieved without mass chaos?
Don't expect a direct answer to that question. It's the thorn in the communist's side, and will always be answered with something closer to faith than reason.
That's the same question I've asked a thousand times, and I've yet to hear an answer better than "Of course they will, once they see it's teh beauteeeeefull!1111!!!!".
Don't hold your breath, either.

But how does society know what people want? The seller will, its his buisness. If his sales drop he lowers his price if he sells out early he raises it. The "middle man" provides what people want, he takes the risk he recieves his reward, profit.

First of all, one of the flaws of capitalism is that people can achieve resources without having contributed them to the economy themselves. They simply alter the course and distribution of these resources, but take resources out of the system in the process. This is bad. Having the courage to take a risk is not a contribution to society that deserves material compensation.

Also, if sales drop but the product that the businessman carries is still of value, it must be because a better bargain is being offered elsewhere. Now take out that last element. Prices will not drop, and you get a monopoly. Consider what happened in the 1810's under the protective tariffs. Non-commercial, non-industrial farmers and planters lost huge sums of money because there was no foreign competition for domestic industries from Europe. The banks loans they grew to rely on ended up backfiring, and they were ruined. However, under competition, low prices simply means lower wages for the workers, even if the consumers get some form of a bargain. Either the consumers or the workers suffer in a competitive market; the bourgeoisie is always safe so long as there are one of the two aformentioned parties to exploit.

The people are the society. People will be able to discern what is necessary for their community and what isn't. During wartime, the people will direct the economy to focus on war industry; during times of famine, labor will be geared less towards industry and more towards agriculture. In socialism, the specifics of the distribution of labor will be left to the government, and even these specifics are kept in check by the people. In communism, as matters are more localized and, thus, more simplified, the people will be in enough close contact with the resident laborer whose labor is highly valued that they will help him/her without direct state order at the will of the people; people just help each other out with the consciousness of what they need. In capitalism, the private businesses have no responsibility to gear themselves to what is most beneficial to the community, rather it has the simple responsibility of doing what is most profitable. Two things arise from this fact:

1) The private business will specialize in labor that reels in the most profit. This labor may not be the type that is necessary for the community in general, even though it is profitable. If it is profitable, it is only so because it is monopolized, the laborer's special skill, or is most appealing to those who have the money, not to society in general. This means you will underproduce what society needs.

2) The business, in attempt to make net profit from the populace, will either produce as little as possible for as much from the community as possible, or will take from the workers as much as possible and pay as little as possible without losing their labor force. In the former scenario, while society may gain some insufficient quantity of the valued product, the capital that is taken back from them prevents them from investing it into other necessities or more of the desired necessity, which will render the valued product, if sold in this form, unhelpful to society, and its sale may even do more harm for society than good by this process. In the secondary scenario, quite simply, the workers suffer, the boss attains surplus value, and the workers are fired, even though they had worked the same amount the whole time.

Not only will capitalism result in underproduction of necessary products of value, but it will do so in a manner that exploits the workers and the consumers. The only clear winner is the bourgeoisie class.

What if your parents imparted you with wealth? Or would there be laws to hinder one from doing so? Otherwise, you would still manage to live a privileged life regardless of your personal merit.

Marx said that all inheretance was undeserved and called for the elimination of inheritance "rights". Of course, in socialism, laws would be enacted to prevent significant sums of inheritance. In communism, the property would not be the family's to inherit in the first place, as it shouldn't be.

This is indeed not as much as matter of faith as you would assume.

It is historically ordained that we are moving in the direction of people taking control of their own destinies, right? We've moved in a direction of despotism to meritocracy to increasingly progressive democracies. It is only natural that the people, by their own merits, will further assert control over the state until there is no more state to control.

If the state withered away on its own, without warning, there would be mass chaos. However, when the state does lose its power and people communalize and become communally-sufficient, it will be by the hand of the people themselves. Society will be responsible for every inch of power the state loses, as it has been. In a gradual process, society will command the state to lose its power and give people their own sovereignty. It will not be that the state collapses and the people are caught off-guard.

This is indeed not as much as matter of faith as you would assume.

It is historically ordained that we are moving in the direction of people taking control of their own destinies, right? We've moved in a direction of despotism to meritocracy to increasingly progressive democracies. It is only natural that the people, by their own merits, will further assert control over the state until there is no more state to control.

Uh yeah, but the abolition of money and the banning of conventional trade isn't part of people taking control of their own destinies.

Communism... The perfect Government.

No, no it wouldn't. In a perfect world, with perfectly selected people, who worked perfectly, then yes(Note-The same is true for Capitalism). However, realistically, a truly Communist large-scale society cannot exist. People are far to different for Communism to work towards what is wanted. People will always have conflict, and thus there must always be an organizational body to control such conflicts. Thus, the "government" will never disolve, as it is always needed.


Question: When Marx claimed that the state would "wither away" to create perfect communism, how was this supposed to be achieved without mass chaos?


First, to note, Marxist and Communist are not the same. A Marxist is a Communist, but not all Communists are Marxists.

To answer your question, it cannot, and will not wither away. The "State" will always exist, for many reasons, both obvious and not. It cannot wither away, because, as stated before, it will always be needed. The main purpose of governmental bodies is to resolve conflict. Since there is always conflict, there will always be government. Also, the government will not resolve for the obvious reason: Who would give up power once granted(with power)? Thus is the flaw.

However, this does not mean that Communism cannot exist, it means that Marxism cannot exist. Communities who begin as Communist will work, and do work, as there is nobody with power to control(Usually, such societies exist in tribal communities, and small isolated villages). Also, it works if a group of people decide to create a communist society, albeit a small one, each of whom has similar beliefs as to how things should work.

So: Communism can work, on a small scale. Marxism cannot.

Remember that all humans are animals, and all animals have instinct. This instinct is what "human nature" is. All animals strive to exist, as do all humans. However, with humans, it becomes more complicated, as with sentient thought.

Well, don't these complexities disprove your argument?

I'm sure you know about Freud's three systems to the psyche: The Id, the Ego, and the Superego. According to Freud, the id always expends its energy on attaining the object of the instinct. Without regarding the id's full capacity to substitute the object for the subject through the primary process and quench its desire, the ego can create anti-cathexes to block out the energy of the id. According to Freud, after the ego develops, it achieves more energy than the id. This means that the anti-cathexes of the ego will subdue the object-cathexes of the id, and the anti-cathexes of the id will NOT subdue the ego-cathexes (such as support for communism). Additionally, the superego provides a force to combat the id, for separate, likewise irrational ends, but ends that are ultimately defeated by the rationale of the ego and used to help subdue those of the id. The id is powerless, and humans are different from animals in that they can subdue their instincts with reason. If they couldn't, humans would never develop psychological systems and civilization would never dawn. We'd all keep killing each other for the immediate discharge of our social tensions, which you claim is the governing force in society.

In fact, we've seen these forces lose power historically.



You find that all humans want to spread on their lineage, which is the basic instinct of all animals. With humans, you find that there is more than one way, the sexual way, to spread lineage. This encompasses knowlege, and more importantly ideas. This urge to spread one's lineage is present in EVERYONE, regardless of what they may think. It is basic animal instinct. This also creates one's urge to be great, for the greater you are, the better chances you have of passing on your lineage.

Unless, of course, your lineage follows the very idea that society must be united in suspicion of those who hold power and must prevent any one party from consolidating too much power over their fellow man, which would constitute a class system.

Also, within such a society, even if such a person with a weak ego-cathexis would strive for greatness at others' expense, it would simply not be allowed. I may have my mind set at whatever I like, if my society does not allow me to take power over it (as communism does not), then my ambitions are useless. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union constituted an upper-class even in the USSR, providing yet another argument as to the betrayal of Marxism we observed in that country.

However, in a large society there is less of a need, and less of a feeling, for working for the "common good". There is a huge difference between Ten out of 100 and 1000 out of 10000. It is easier to get 9000 people to produce enough than it is to get 90 people to do the same.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. When we start relying on labor for the "common good" and enter into communism from socialism, I cannot stress enough the importance of localization (and neither could Marx). Communities will naturally localize to the point where small communes would govern themselves, communally, and through such a manner be able to inspire labor for the common good, just as the small societies you mentioned would be able to do relatively well.

The communes would not compete, and would interact in mutual-best interest, if they'd interact at all, since the communes would be divided as to allow self-sustanance. There wouldn't be friction between larger vs. smaller societies.

Remember that all humans are animals, and all animals have instinct. This instinct is what "human nature" is. All animals strive to exist, as do all humans. However, with humans, it becomes more complicated, as with sentient thought.

Well, don't these complexities disprove your argument?

I'm sure you know about Freud's three systems to the psyche: The Id, the Ego, and the Superego. According to Freud, the id always expends its energy on attaining the object of the instinct. Without regarding the id's full capacity to substitute the object for the subject through the primary process and quench its desire, the ego can create anti-cathexes to block out the energy of the id. According to Freud, after the ego develops, it achieves more energy than the id. This means that the anti-cathexes of the ego will subdue the object-cathexes of the id, and the anti-cathexes of the id will NOT subdue the ego-cathexes (such as support for communism). Additionally, the superego provides a force to combat the id, for separate, likewise irrational ends, but ends that are ultimately defeated by the rationale of the ego and used to help subdue those of the id. The id is powerless, and humans are different from animals in that they can subdue their instincts with reason. If they couldn't, humans would never develop psychological systems and civilization would never dawn. We'd all keep killing each other for the immediate discharge of our social tensions, which you claim is the governing force in society.

In fact, we've seen these forces lose power historically.



You find that all humans want to spread on their lineage, which is the basic instinct of all animals. With humans, you find that there is more than one way, the sexual way, to spread lineage. This encompasses knowlege, and more importantly ideas. This urge to spread one's lineage is present in EVERYONE, regardless of what they may think. It is basic animal instinct. This also creates one's urge to be great, for the greater you are, the better chances you have of passing on your lineage.

Unless, of course, your lineage follows the very idea that society must be united in suspicion of those who hold power and must prevent any one party from consolidating too much power over their fellow man, which would constitute a class system.

Also, within such a society, even if such a person with a weak ego-cathexis would strive for greatness at others' expense, it would simply not be allowed. I may have my mind set at whatever I like, if my society does not allow me to take power over it (as communism does not), then my ambitions are useless. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union constituted an upper-class even in the USSR, providing yet another argument as to the betrayal of Marxism we observed in that country.

However, in a large society there is less of a need, and less of a feeling, for working for the "common good". There is a huge difference between Ten out of 100 and 1000 out of 10000. It is easier to get 9000 people to produce enough than it is to get 90 people to do the same.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. When we start relying on labor for the "common good" and enter into communism from socialism, I cannot stress enough the importance of localization (and neither could Marx). Communities will naturally localize to the point where small communes would govern themselves, communally, and through such a manner be able to inspire labor for the common good, just as the small societies you mentioned would be able to do relatively well.

The communes would not compete, and would interact in mutual-best interest, if they'd interact at all, since the communes would be divided as to allow self-sustanance. There wouldn't be friction between larger vs. smaller societies.

when you say China or USSR are or were communist countries, your wrong.
they had or have extremist versions of communism, like stalinism, maoism, etc.

just like you cant say USA is a Democracy-Capitalism. it is a way more extreme Capitalism, and latest events makes me think its going away from the principles of Democracy.


true Communism wasnt achived yet in practise. except for one thing.

Open Source Software is liberal, and to an extent, Communist/Anarchist because it stands on the principles of free software available to all, whoever that all is, and not controlled by anyone or any market, hence no one can influence it.

- Communist because anyone can use this kind of software, it does not descriminate nor makes a difference between races, religions, cultures, economic classes or beliefs. so to Open Source principles, everyone is seen equally.
- Anarchist because it has no bosses, no one has power over it. no one can influence the outcome of it and it doesnt has a direct market over it.


this is a really good example of how things can go the GOOD WAY.
Open Source is a true success of policies and ideologies, even though it wasnt based or related to these ideologies, just pure Liberal thinking.

so if at all, anything that resembles communism so far is this. not a great example, not really a society or anything, but it works.



and yes i know your now gona say that Open Source doesnt works, it will never will, because you cant use it properly on a market, bla bla bla...

well that is pure bullsh*t
look around. plenty of success stories.
- Apache Foundation software - freeware and open source. merchandise available for sale
- Mozzila Foundation software - same as above
- MySQL AB software - freeware and open source, commercial licenses available and professional/IT support/subscriptions
- Perl and affilitated O'Reilly - freeware and open source. derived works such as tools, books, support, etc commercially availabe
- PHP and affiliated Zend - same as above plus closed source/commercial software engineered torwards productivity in PHP programming
- Atlassian software - namely Confluence and Jira, available as open source. licenses can be freeware for Open Source devoted groups and institutions and commercial for others
- GNU, Open Standards/Implementations, Services, etc - Linux/BSD, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, OpenPGP, Zlib, OpenGL, OpenAL, Vorbis, XviD, SourceForge, eDonkey networks, clients and servers, Python language/compilers/GUIs likewise PHP, Perl and other programming languages, etc etc etc

the list goes on. look around.
we dont have to live of just Capitalist crap.
its true a Capitalism economy is needed for some things, but so are other liberal concepts needed aswell for both Economics and Politics.

in my opinion, the ideal wouldnt be going to any extremes, but stay around the center-left area, like Liberal-Democracy with a less aggressive Capitalist, more "centric" economy, a mean term between Capitalism and more liberal ideals.


ah, noticed someone made references to communist classes, but i didnt though they were accurate so i did a search.
quote from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star):
"The five-pointed red star (a pentagram without the inner pentagon) is a symbol of Communism and Socialism and represents the five fingers of the worker's hand, as well as the five (inhabited) continents. A lesser known suggestion is that the five points on the star were intended to represent the five social groups that would lead the nation to communism. In no particular order, they are: the youth (the future generations), the military (to protect and defend socialism), industrial workers (labourers), agricultural workers (peasantry), and the intelligentsia (to criticize and to improve the ideas and practices of life in order to attain communism). In general, it was the emblem, symbol, and signal that indicated the truth of the new order under the rule and guidance of the Communist Party."

Once again, when the wind really starts blowin', the house of cards that is the communist's utopian fantasy comes crashing down hard.
One single question blows the whole scam to smithereens! :p

Question: When Marx claimed that the state would "wither away" to create perfect communism, how was this supposed to be achieved without mass chaos?

*crickets*

And if your entire anti-communist argument rests on that remark, then rest assured we have won the debate.

Both myself and another Comrade have offered thorough replies to that question. You were simply never motivated in seeking it.

Communism would definitely be worthwhile if the average person wasn't a greedy, lazy bastard.

Communism is an exellent theory but it rarely works because of the viloence that inherits the system. Also no man Wants to give up his possesions for the good of the whole , Making communism a good idea just out of reach.:sniper:

Your argument hasn't deviated from the original ones. We've already elevated the debate beyond your 7th-grade social-studies logic. Please re-read this forum topic and then formulate an educated response.

And if your entire anti-communist argument rests on that remark, then rest assured we have won the debate.

Both myself and another Comrade have offered thorough replies to that question. You were simply never motivated in seeking it.
Is this what you mean by "offered through replies"?
This is indeed not as much as matter of faith as you would assume.

It is historically ordained that we are moving in the direction of people taking control of their own destinies, right? We've moved in a direction of despotism to meritocracy to increasingly progressive democracies. It is only natural that the people, by their own merits, will further assert control over the state until there is no more state to control.

If the state withered away on its own, without warning, there would be mass chaos. However, when the state does lose its power and people communalize and become communally-sufficient, it will be by the hand of the people themselves. Society will be responsible for every inch of power the state loses, as it has been. In a gradual process, society will command the state to lose its power and give people their own sovereignty. It will not be that the state collapses and the people are caught off-guard.

Again, this doesn't meet my conditions; namely that it be realistic. Whatever makes you think that while we are heading toward a more libertarian (individualist/"people taking control of their own destinies") era, a communitarian (Borg-like/people taking control of everyone else's destinies) movement is the final outcome?

In other words, your grand philosophy is that the powerful socialist state (necessary to accomodate the upcoming communist model) will give up power ... naturally?
Are you for real? If the above is true, sounds like we're in for an anarcho-capitalist future, not a communist utopia.

Your argument hasn't deviated from the original ones. We've already elevated the debate beyond your 7th-grade social-studies logic. Please re-read this forum topic and then formulate an educated response.
Stop being so arrogant! In 7 posts, you haven't done jack shit. You haven't even elevated yourself above n00b yet, comrade.

Wow Eichen still at it? :p It seems the commies aren't giving up the fight.

^ LOL. Actually, I popped my head in and got sucked back into it.
I've done the whole thing so many times in the last year on these boards (capitalism vs. socialism/communism) I can kinda go on autopilot and relax a bit. :D

When will they realise that this coveted utopia is lightyears away? They won't rest, but I guess its nice to give them something to play with :)

When will they realise that this coveted utopia is lightyears away? They won't rest, but I guess its nice to give them something to play with :)
I think you're the only person who's on-the-level with me. Unlike most other capitalists, I don't say that communism is impossible. Just impossible in practice with our current level of technology. (You know what I'm talking about ;) )

Bring the roboproletariate so I can quit my fucking job! :D

Indeed, we came to an understanding on the issue :) Too bad most people have gone backwards instead of forwards in the argument.

Indeed, we came to an understanding on the issue :) Too bad most people have gone backwards instead of forwards in the argument.
Funny thing is, I have the same arguments with libertarians who go all the way and stick up for anarcho-capitalsim. Not going to go down well for a very, very long time. In fact, by the time it could work well, communism would obviously win out as a better political model (or absense thereof).
Oh noes... both sides hate me! :D

More or less the same here. Capitalism is a means to an end. :)

So what? Hitler purged rival Nazis. Mobsters kill rival mobsters all the time. Does that mean Hitler's not a Nazi, or that mobsters aren't mobsters?

Good point. Here's what I don't get, commies call those of us who don't believe simple minded, yet they think that just someone kills a communist he cannot be a communist. What could be more simple minded than that? The reason that communists kill each other is the need for a scapegoat. The economic policies of communists (and all other socialists) will fail, and people will want someone to blame for that failure, so the communist leaders sat that "traitors" within the heirarchy are sabotaging everything, and those people are "purged", it also explains why communist propaganda is full of hysterical balderdash of foreign plots.

You may live in a better hose

Getting into the Monty Python? http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-four-yorkshiremen.html

However, with Stalin, you don't even have Communism. You have the exact polar opposite, which was more closely related to Fascism.

Communism is not the polar opposite of fascism, they are very closely related. The only real difference is the rhetoric of the regime (and sometimes not that), and that fascists leave nominal private owners (while exercising all the powers associated with ownership, and taking the proceeds)

Stalin did absolutely nothing Communist.

Collectivisation of agriculture? Planning of all economic activity? Mass murder? Torture? Invasion and subjugation of foreign nations?

What is non-communist about any of that? Nothing!

"Human nature" is irrelevent, due to the fact that it doesn't exist. While it is true that you can say that most humans will act in a certain way, it is untrue that all humans act in a certain way. All it would take, initially, is people whose natures don't fit the traditional views of human nature.

As another poster succinctly said "we are all animals".

There is currently more than enough food for everyone in the world.
I would assume that such a society would also use as many renewable resources as possible: i.e. wind, solar power, industrial hemp.

Not everywhere in the world. You didn't read my post, for communism to work, there must be an abundance of all the necessary materials in that society's area. The only situation which got close to that was the Garden of Eden, and depending on your point of view, it either never existed, or is closed to people. Perhaps the athiestic communists will ask God to re-open the Garden?

Why would the society need to isolate itself from non communist societies when the communist society would most likely be better than non communist societies? More than likely the non communist societies would see the communist society as a threat and try to eliminate it.

You can't be serious, firstly, it won't be better, all attempts at communism have produced misery, and shortages which even reached the level of starvation. The people will want to leave, the more socialist a society gets, the more people want to leave it, was the Berlin Wall an attempt to keep Westerners out of the communist paradise?

People don't have to be equal, all they have to do is decide that society will view them as equal.

You can't dismiss the flaws in your ideas by saying that there will be a priori agreement, or by saying that people will fit in.

It is unrealistic to assume that a government will not get involved with the economy. The only way for laissez-faire to happen is if you have an anarcho-capitalistic system.

You are being logically inconsistant, first you say that people will change, and now you say they won't. The state can be kept out of the economy, and it has been until relatively recently.

Really? A militia can't be made up of an entire community?

Read my posts before responding. A militia will merely place a leader in charge.

I agree, Marx was wrong. The issue here is that Marx isn't the be all end all of all forms of communism.

You didn't read my post. You merely saw the name "Marx", and said to yourself "Now I can get out of explaining anything"

Directly democratic communities already exist, thus showing it's possible. Whether or not it's practical would depend upon how involved the members of the community are in the democratic process.

In that circumstance, it is still not practical because different people have different talents, and some are more talented in leadership, and they will come to the fore, they always have.

I would think that at the society meetings, people would discuss the (material) things that they want the society to supply them, and how many. If the society deems it worth it to expend resources to obtain those things, it will do so.

I said suggest an alternative, and show how it is better, not show how much more cumbersome and inefficient it is. Society already decides how resources will be expended in the open market.

This is better because it's more democratic.

It is less democratic. In an open market, each makes his own decision. Under your way, a minority cannot get what it wants because the majority will block it. In an open market, they will because they will be able to pay for it.

It cuts out the middleman (the seller of goods) and makes a line directly from the society to the individual, the way it should be.

The state (which you call society to make it sound better) never owned it in the first place, so your point fails on that. Secondly, it does not remove a middleman (who is useful because he makes the effort to get the goods to a convenient place for you), it emplaces millions of middlemen, who vote on what they want, and bugger anyone who disagrees.

It is also better because it keeps all of the resources in the society in the hands of the society, and doesn't concentrate it in the hands of the few the way "profit" does.

Nonsense.

Soviet Sclst Republics, you need to read up on your economics. Mises, Hayak, Hazlitt, and Friedman would be a good start.

This is indeed not as much as matter of faith as you would assume.

This is inconsistant with this:

It is historically ordained

Usually, such societies exist in tribal communities, and small isolated villages

Tribes, which invariably have Chiefs and Elders.

Communism can work

Only within a family unit, or a marriage has this ever been shown by the evidence.

Well, don't these complexities disprove your argument?

No. These complexities don't conflict with our primal nature, they stem merely from our sentience.

"common good"

No such thing. Humans don't think collectively like Borg drones (a communist society!), there is only an individual's interest.

People who blabber on about "the common good" usually mean that some must give up their rights to suit the interests of a carefully-selected minority.

The communes would not compete, and would interact in mutual-best interest, if they'd interact at all, since the communes would be divided as to allow self-sustanance. There wouldn't be friction between larger vs. smaller societies.

You just admitted the flaw in your own theory. Such an isolated society must have an abundance of everything it needs in perpetuity. With the exception of the Garden of Eden, this is unknown, and as to the Garden, depending on your viewpoint, it either never existed, or was closed off due to Eve's shenannigans with the apple.

when you say China or USSR are or were communist countries, your wrong.
they had or have extremist versions of communism, like stalinism, maoism, etc.

Refuted by me about 36 pages ago. If you can't be arsed to read it, keep a diary instead of posting.

and yes i know your now gona say that Open Source doesnt works, it will never will, because you cant use it properly on a market, bla bla bla...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with any form of socialism because people are voluntarily offering their intellectual property.

And if your entire anti-communist argument rests on that remark, then rest assured we have won the debate.

Bollocks.

When will they realise that this coveted utopia is lightyears away? They won't rest, but I guess its nice to give them something to play with

Utopia cannot exist on Earth, and any attempt to bring it will merely result in the devastation, which we have seen in every attempt at communism. An aside, for all the religion bashing on thos board, one must acknowledge they they did get one thing right, they made it clear that utopia wasn't on Earth, it was something you reach after you died if you lived a virtuous life. It has a good logic to it, turn the totally destructive desire for utopia into a vehicle for virtue.

Good point. Here's what I don't get, commies call those of us who don't believe simple minded, yet they think that just someone kills a communist he cannot be a communist. What could be more simple minded than that? The reason that communists kill each other is the need for a scapegoat. The economic policies of communists (and all other socialists) will fail, and people will want someone to blame for that failure, so the communist leaders sat that "traitors" within the heirarchy are sabotaging everything, and those people are "purged", it also explains why communist propaganda is full of hysterical balderdash of foreign plots.


Capitalists kill each other. People kill people. Violence, whether people like it or not, is a basic human instinct. By saying that one group is the only one who does, while not addressing the fact that the other does as well is poor debate. Your assertions towards Communism are also rather general as well, and especially your assertion towards Socialism, which both work, albeit with Communism on a small scale, and Socialism on a limited scale.


Communism is not the polar opposite of fascism, they are very closely related. The only real difference is the rhetoric of the regime (and sometimes not that), and that fascists leave nominal private owners (while exercising all the powers associated with ownership, and taking the proceeds)


Under Communism, in it's purest form(which is infact practiced today, in SMALL groups, I cannot stress this enough) does not have control over any part of the economy, for the economy does not exist in a form that most people recognize. Under Communism, there is a more egolitarian economy, not a trade economy. Also, the economy is not controlled. Under Fascism, there is a trade economy, which is almost entirely controlled by a Centralized government.


Collectivisation of agriculture? Planning of all economic activity? Mass murder? Torture? Invasion and subjugation of foreign nations?

What is non-communist about any of that? Nothing!

Communism does not require mass collectivisation or planning of all economic activity. You are thinking of a form more closely related to Fascism(Which is what Marxism inevitably leads to). Communism is instead a system where the people *voluntarily* share goods and services among all the people of the community, to better their overall lives. This works in small groups, but not in large for many reasons. As for mass murder, torture, and invasion-what the hell does Communism have to do with that?

As another poster succinctly said "we are all animals".


That would be me. Figured I'd give mad props to myself.

*snip for nothing to argue*


Tribes, which invariably have Chiefs and Elders.


However, usually Chiefs and Elders gain their positions through great deeds for the community, and work towards providing necessary services towards the people. Also, these people many times do not see themselves as the "elite" that you find in "Communist" countries such as the USSR, but rather as integral parts of society, which are required to function. They are not elevated to the godlike status, or even truly elite, that you find elsewhere. Thus, they still fulfill true communism, as they are not better, just different. Take a course in basic Anthropology, and you'll learn alot about the Tribal people. Really a very intricate subject.

*snip again*


Utopia cannot exist on Earth, and any attempt to bring it will merely result in the devastation, which we have seen in every attempt at communism. An aside, for all the religion bashing on thos board, one must acknowledge they they did get one thing right, they made it clear that utopia wasn't on Earth, it was something you reach after you died if you lived a virtuous life. It has a good logic to it, turn the totally destructive desire for utopia into a vehicle for virtue.

And, unfortunately, this is true. Nature itself makes a "Utopia" impossible. Communism cannot exist in a "State" form for several reasons, including but not limited to: Nationalism, Non Vaccuum state of the world, greed, etc. Now, this is neither a failing of Communism, as it does work on a small scale without the ill effects found, nor is it a failing of Humans to be unable to strive for it. The system, quite frankly, is impossible to achieve as either a "State" or on a worldwide basis.

As for religion, one cannot ignore the destructive nature inherent in many religions. Also, you imply that only Communism is destructive, which is not true. Capitalism, in it's purest form, is about as destructive.

Socialism can be bad, but there are good aspects. One cannot discard the entirety of it simply because parts are bad. Same goes for Capitalism.

Capitalists kill each other. People kill people. Violence, whether people like it or not, is a basic human instinct. By saying that one group is the only one who does, while not addressing the fact that the other does as well is poor debate. Your assertions towards Communism are also rather general as well, and especially your assertion towards Socialism, which both work, albeit with Communism on a small scale, and Socialism on a limited scale.

Strawman fallacy. The fact is that the argument made (that because Stalin killed communists, he wasn't a communist) was utterly ridiculous.

The reason communists and socialists must kill, and impose a regime of terror on the population is to enforce their economic measures, ensure their continuance, and provide scapegoats for the inevitable economic failures.

Under Communism, in it's purest form(which is infact practiced today, in SMALL groups, I cannot stress this enough) does not have control over any part of the economy, for the economy does not exist in a form that most people recognize. Under Communism, there is a more egolitarian economy, not a trade economy. Also, the economy is not controlled. Under Fascism, there is a trade economy, which is almost entirely controlled by a Centralized government.

"The economy" is simply productive, and consumptive activity. I have already pointed out why theoretical communism is irrelevant to the debate, as the theory has no basis in reality.

Communism does not require mass collectivisation or planning of all economic activity.

Rubbish. You should read more of your own propaganda.

As for mass murder, torture, and invasion-what the hell does Communism have to do with that?

Killing fields, gulag, Berlin Wall. Was I posting in ancient Hebrew?

However, usually Chiefs and Elders gain their positions through great deeds for the community, and work towards providing necessary services towards the people.

Irrelevant non-objection.

Also, these people many times do not see themselves as the "elite" that you find in "Communist" countries such as the USSR, but rather as integral parts of society, which are required to function.

Irrelevant non-objection number two.

They are not elevated to the godlike status, or even truly elite, that you find elsewhere.

Irrelevant non-objection number three.

Tribal societies are still heirarchical, and in many cases dictatorial, as the leaders are frequently chosen for age, or in combat.

Thus, they still fulfill true communism, as they are not better, just different.

A conclusion that doesn't follow from your arguments.

Now, this is neither a failing of Communism

Utter f***ing rubbish! Communism has always been posited as a total political economic philosophy for the world. That it is not at all compatible with the world is certainly a failing of communism.

Socialism can be bad, but there are good aspects. One cannot discard the entirety of it simply because parts are bad.

Socialism is based on economic fallacies, and greed. As a cure, it is worse than the disease.

Strawman fallacy. The fact is that the argument made (that because Stalin killed communists, he wasn't a communist) was utterly ridiculous.

The reason communists and socialists must kill, and impose a regime of terror on the population is to enforce their economic measures, ensure their continuance, and provide scapegoats for the inevitable economic failures.



"The economy" is simply productive, and consumptive activity. I have already pointed out why theoretical communism is irrelevant to the debate, as the theory has no basis in reality.



Rubbish. You should read more of your own propaganda.



Killing fields, gulag, Berlin Wall. Was I posting in ancient Hebrew?



Irrelevant non-objection.



Irrelevant non-objection number two.



Irrelevant non-objection number three.

Tribal societies are still heirarchical, and in many cases dictatorial, as the leaders are frequently chosen for age, or in combat.



A conclusion that doesn't follow from your arguments.



Utter f***ing rubbish! Communism has always been posited as a total political economic philosophy for the world. That it is not at all compatible with the world is certainly a failing of communism.



Socialism is based on economic fallacies, and greed. As a cure, it is worse than the disease.


Do you have any sources for these charges? Any real sources? No, you are just telling these things, because you think you are right... Have you truly ever read something of marx? Don't you tell me you ever did, cause then you are lying again. You are just a victim of pure propaganda, you are tought to fear communism, so you don't see that the system you live in is the real enemy. I hope for your sake that you once see the truth. And therefore you need reliable sources

Of course the best way to ask someone to substantiate something is make unsubstantiated charges.

If that's the best response you can come up with, than I should be making a notch on my pistol.

If you had read this very thread, you would discover that not only have I read Marx, but have quoted him directly!

I've got no time for people who do uncritical, fawning readings of Marx.

Ad-hominem doesn't win you debates, it merely makes you look like a child.

Strawman fallacy. The fact is that the argument made (that because Stalin killed communists, he wasn't a communist) was utterly ridiculous.

Note-I was not saying that Stalin wasn't communist because he killed communist, but he wasn't communist AND he killed Communists. His very actions towards gaining near-infinite power pretty much destroy an premonition that he was communist. Also, I was pointing out your flawed statement that implied that only Communists kill, which is quite wrong.


The reason communists and socialists must kill, and impose a regime of terror on the population is to enforce their economic measures, ensure their continuance, and provide scapegoats for the inevitable economic failures.

Not all socialists must kill or impose through terror or fear. Do not confuse Communism with Socialism, as the two are quite different, and not interchangeable. Same goes with Facsism and Socialism. Not to mention the fact that you seem to be missing every time I say it is that Communism is used in small, voluntary groups. It only "must" be imposed in the State form, which Communism cannot exist in, pretty much by definition. The system is good, just not as a government.



"The economy" is simply productive, and consumptive activity. I have already pointed out why theoretical communism is irrelevant to the debate, as the theory has no basis in reality.


And that has to do with what I said how? Communist communities do exist. This is not "theoretical" statement, it is a statement of fact. Under the system of "economy" used in such Communist communities, if a person needs something, such as food, then others may give them food so as to ensure that these people remain comfortable. This is not a gift, however. It is something of a loan. The receiver is not usually required to give back, but usually does for social pressures. Nobody wants to be seen as a cheapskate. Not only that, but they give back in interest, so as to gain favorable views from the community. Thus is the economy of Communism. The system which is practiced today in small communities.


Rubbish. You should read more of your own propaganda.

Perhaps you should read what I really said, as a whole, instead of passing these things off.


Killing fields, gulag, Berlin Wall. Was I posting in ancient Hebrew?

None of which are of any Communist doctrine.


Irrelevant non-objection.

It's called background information.


Irrelevant non-objection number two.

See above.


Irrelevant non-objection number three.

Once more.


Tribal societies are still heirarchical, and in many cases dictatorial, as the leaders are frequently chosen for age, or in combat.

However, these people do not elevate themselves to godlike status, and usually do not abuse their "power"(which is usually influential and not direct) as you see in State-Governments(see Stalin). Also, they do not view themselves as the "elites" who must be seperated from the common man(usually). They use their power to ensure that the community is stable, resolving conflicts and such. They do not govern(usually).



A conclusion that doesn't follow from your arguments.

Perhaps I should have iterated more: The people at the "top" are not truly at the "top". They do not have infinite power over the community, and do believe they deserve such. They see themselves as equals among the community: Thus, the ideals of Communism are still intact.



Utter f***ing rubbish! Communism has always been posited as a total political economic philosophy for the world. That it is not at all compatible with the world is certainly a failing of communism.

Nice to see you edited that part completely out of context. Read the rest. Don't go piece by piece, you must look at it as a whole. And Communism has not *always* been posited as such. Communism can work-once more I state this in hopes of getting through to you- in small Communities. The only ones who believe it should be a world-wide political system are Marxists and the like. There are other types of Communists.


Socialism is based on economic fallacies, and greed. As a cure, it is worse than the disease.

Depends on the Socialism, of course. Democracy and Republics are a rather light form of Socialism. Aspects of Socialism can be good. You're bundling apples my friend.* Just because one type is bad doesn't mean all are.

For those who don't know what "bunlding apples" means, it refers to putting Apples, the fruit, and Road Apples, the horse shit piles, in the same basket and calling them all shit.

comunism does work. it is just when people want more power that it fails. To suceed with communism the entire world must be comunist. i believe that comunism is good but im from england and would not know what it was like under stalin. I think as an idea from th UK comunism is a symbol of rebellion against opressors. We are only too familiar with Che guevara tshirts, usually worn by wannabe anarchists. Comunism has manifested into something different over the years into a symbol of freedom

Depends on the Socialism, of course. Democracy and Republics are a rather light form of Socialism. Aspects of Socialism can be good. You're bundling apples my friend.* Just because one type is bad doesn't mean all are.


There is nothing inherently democratic about socialism. Stop saying there is. Democracy is not necessarily the hallmark of ANY ideology - democracy is just a way in which leaders are chosen. You could elect a capitalist, a socialist, a monkey. I wish you would stop assuming that Democracy=socialism.

There is nothing inherently democratic about socialism. Stop saying there is. Democracy is not necessarily the hallmark of ANY ideology - democracy is just a way in which leaders are chosen. You could elect a capitalist, a socialist, a monkey. I wish you would stop assuming that Democracy=socialism.

Democracy is a very socialistic form of government, as it is an elimination of individual political rights for a collective system of government. The direct democracy that most communists want is about as collectivist as it gets and in no way respects individual rights.

There is nothing inherently democratic about socialism. Stop saying there is. Democracy is not necessarily the hallmark of ANY ideology - democracy is just a way in which leaders are chosen. You could elect a capitalist, a socialist, a monkey. I wish you would stop assuming that Democracy=socialism.

Basic definitions:

Socialism=Society controlled by the people.

Democracy=The people govern themselves.

Seems pretty clear. The main aspect of Democracy, the a government governed by the People, is pretty damn socialist. It's a very different type of socialism than Communism or Fascism, but it is still a *light* form of socialism. There is more than one type of socialism, my friend.

comunism does work. it is just when people want more power that it fails. To suceed with communism the entire world must be comunist.

Doesn't a system which requires worldwide acceptance - one in which there is NO OTHER OPTION - strike you as a potentially very weak system? The fact that any group of people or nation practicing communism is outdone by practitioners of any other philosophy suggests to me that communism is a regressive and ineffective social idea.


i believe that comunism is good but im from england and would not know what it was like under stalin. I think as an idea from th UK comunism is a symbol of rebellion against opressors.

I'm from the England and I don't think communism is good, but I agree that the hammer and sickle and representations of Lenin, Guevara and other communists have been mistakenly construed as some sort of pro-liberty icons in our nation.

Communism is a great concept that goes against human nature and is thereby destined to always meet with failure.

Enter greed and lazyness.......

Doesn't a system which requires worldwide acceptance - one in which there is NO OTHER OPTION - strike you as a potentially very weak system? The fact that any group of people or nation practicing communism is outdone by practitioners of any other philosophy suggests to me that communism is a regressive and ineffective social idea.

That would be more closely related to Marxism. There are other types of Communism.


I'm from the England and I don't think communism is good, but I agree that the hammer and sickle and representations of Lenin, Guevara and other communists have been mistakenly construed as some sort of pro-liberty icons in our nation.

Lenin started off on somewhat good note, then soured quickly when he couldn't get his Communist society running(I'm not saying it should have here). Most major "Communists"(who usually were Fascist, a completely different system) also weren't exactly champioins of "liberty". Infact, in my country they aren't seen as such. Nobody in their right mind would(Note, I now notice you are in Britain).

Democracy is a very socialistic form of government, as it is an elimination of individual political rights for a collective system of government. The direct democracy that most communists want is about as collectivist as it gets and in no way respects individual rights.

Democracy is the means by which individuals can exercise their individual right to pick a leader.

Basic definitions:

Socialism=Society controlled by the people.

Democracy=The people govern themselves.

Seems pretty clear. The main aspect of Democracy, the a government governed by the People, is pretty damn socialist. It's a very different type of socialism than Communism or Fascism, but it is still a *light* form of socialism. There is more than one type of socialism, my friend.

"Society controlled by the people" isn't a basic definition of socialism. A laissez-faire democracy isn't socialistic, for instance. Socialism is a system of strong central government in which the means of production is publically owned.

I maintain adamently against you both that Socialism and Capitalism are the names of economic and social systems of government - democracy just describes the political process, not what the politicians DO.

That would be more closely related to Marxism. There are other types of Communism.

So you would propose that a single communist nation of whatever shade could exist alongside capitalist and other nations?


Lenin started off on somewhat good note, then soured quickly when he couldn't get his Communist society running(I'm not saying it should have here). Most major "Communists"(who usually were Fascist, a completely different system) also weren't exactly champioins of "liberty". Infact, in my country they aren't seen as such. Nobody in their right mind would(Note, I now notice you are in Britain).

Well then we agree. The glorification of Che Guevara and V I Lenin is absurd and misguided.

Funny stuff: If you add the people of the top two responses (Comunism is good or not too bad) you get more than if you add up the 3rd and 4th (Communism is bad or worse than Nazism).

I guess the guys who have experienced communism and then capitalism have the answer we're looking for.

Funny...

Funny stuff: If you add the people of the top two responses (Comunism is good or not too bad) you get more than if you add up the 3rd and 4th (Communism is bad or worse than Nazism).

I guess the guys who have experienced communism and then capitalism have the answer we're looking for.

Funny...

Let's not forget that NationStates isn't a stratified, fair sample of the world's population. Most people who just came out of communist-attempt nations probably don't have computers.

So you would propose that a single communist nation of whatever shade could exist alongside capitalist and other nations?


It's is *technically* possible, if you were able to have a population working towards the "greater good", so to speak(note I am not implying that Communism is a superior system). However, this is unlikely, so it lies in the realm of improbability. HOWEVER, it can, and does, work in close-nit small communities, in which a system more closely related to Capitalism would cause the community to fail. The system is good, under the right circumstances. As a government, it is not. As a community, it *can* be.


Well then we agree. The glorification of Che Guevara and V I Lenin is absurd and misguided.

Exactly.

Let's not forget that NationStates isn't a stratified, fair sample of the world's population. Most people who just came out of communist-attempt nations probably don't have computers.

I wouldn't doubt that some of those people put themselves as from a Communist nation just for effect.

Remember that on the internet, a forty-year old balding fat man can be a 19 year old horny cheerlead prom queen. Anybody can say they are anything, and it is amost impossible to check.

I wouldn't doubt that some of those people put themselves as from a Communist nation just for effect.

Remember that on the internet, a forty-year old balding fat man can be a 19 year old horny cheerlead prom queen. Anybody can say they are anything, and it is amost impossible to check.

Even if everyone was truthful in the poll, it shows that hardly anybody on here is from a former communist nation, so for all we know there could be millions of communism-refugees who absolutely loath the idea.

Democracy is the means by which individuals can exercise their individual right to pick a leader.

Democracy is the means by which a collective chooses their leader, I as an individual did not approve of George Bush, nevertheless he is leader I must accept.

Democracy is the means by which a collective chooses their leader, I as an individual did not approve of George Bush, nevertheless he is leader I must accept.

You have a very fair point which I can't really argue against. But what alternative system do you propose? A dictator is even more likely to compromise the rights of individuals.

We should make giant constructs that accurately represent each party or theory of running a country, nation, or state, and fill their heads (or thinking sections) with the ideal of their respective party's or theory's way of running the country, nation, or state, and make them fight in a specially created arena in... mars or something.
(great terminology there :rolleyes: )

I know this is a serious debate, but if the battle were at least simulated, then perhaps we could have some idea of which is the best kind. I have this strange notion that communism would probably destroy all the other constructs, and the main, final, showdown would be between communism and.... the republicism bot (tories, for any other brits here). But does that make them the best way to run a country? My guess is the one that would start out trying to make the arena bent towards their favour, while stopping the other constructs from killing them until they could go on a minimum damage, minimum expense offensive. But who would that be?!

You have a very fair point which I can't really argue against. But what alternative system do you propose? A dictator is even more likely to compromise the rights of individuals.

I think that the current system of the US is great, but could be made better with just a few modifications.

1. Term limits on everthing at the state and federal level. One cities of over 100,000 or more, term limits on all paid city officials. The best move up, the rest have to get real jobs.

2. An increase in personel responsibility. Holding people accountable for what they do.

3. Limiting frivoulous law suits, these hurt everyone.

4. Take politics out of the classroom. Students are in school to be taught, not indoctrinated.

5. Get most of the population to have opinions that consist of more than a 8 second sound bite.

As another poster succinctly said "we are all animals". And as others subsequently pointed out - we don't all always act like animals.

Not everywhere in the world. You didn't read my post, for communism to work, there must be an abundance of all the necessary materials in that society's area. The only situation which got close to that was the Garden of Eden, and depending on your point of view, it either never existed, or is closed to people. Perhaps the athiestic communists will ask God to re-open the Garden?You ignore the possibility of trade.

You can't be serious, firstly, it won't be better, all attempts at communism have produced misery, and shortages which even reached the level of starvation. The people will want to leave, the more socialist a society gets, the more people want to leave it, was the Berlin Wall an attempt to keep Westerners out of the communist paradise?The Berlin Wall was an attempt to keep the people in the non-Communist U.S.S.R. Not sure what that has to do with this debate.
Furthermore, there have been many attempts at communism that have worked out well - as another poster explained, small communes work beautifully.

You can't dismiss the flaws in your ideas by saying that there will be a priori agreement, or by saying that people will fit in.Of course I can say there will be a priori agreement, why would people vote for the communist society if they didn't agree with it?

You are being logically inconsistant, first you say that people will change, and now you say they won't. The state can be kept out of the economy, and it has been until relatively recently.I'm not saying that people will change. People don't need to change...it would be nice if they changed in favor of Communism, but it isn't necessary - there are more than enough communists already for it to work (on a small scale.) You're the one who is arguing that governments are corrupt and that that was the flaw in Marx's ideas. If this is true then laissez-faire is impossible, as the government will always seek to have more power than it has.

Read my posts before responding. A militia will merely place a leader in charge.Read my posts before responding. Not all militias do, as I've explained already about the Spanish Civil War.

You didn't read my post. You merely saw the name "Marx", and said to yourself "Now I can get out of explaining anything"I don't have to explain anything. Your question was with regard to the Manifesto, and I don't need to defend it except for a few parts of it.

In that circumstance, it is still not practical because different people have different talents, and some are more talented in leadership, and they will come to the fore, they always have.Only if allowed to.

I said suggest an alternative, and show how it is better, not show how much more cumbersome and inefficient it is. Society already decides how resources will be expended in the open market.No, individuals with resources decide how resources will be expended on the open market.

It is less democratic. In an open market, each makes his own decision. Under your way, a minority cannot get what it wants because the majority will block it. Under your way, a majority will not be able to get what it wants if it doesn't meet the conditions of the minority (in this case the seller of an object). How is the majority getting its way less democratic than the minority getting its way?

In an open market, they will because they will be able to pay for it.Except, of course, for those who can't pay for it.


The state (which you call society to make it sound better) never owned it in the first place, so your point fails on that. Of course it did. The only reason an individual owns it is based upon the law. Remove that, and society is returned what naturally belongs to it.

Secondly, it does not remove a middleman (who is useful because he makes the effort to get the goods to a convenient place for you), it emplaces millions of middlemen, who vote on what they want, and bugger anyone who disagrees.The same group of people is both the supplier and the distributor of an object. Where is the middleman here?